Romans 15:7 (with comments) Part 3

Romans 15:7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.

CROSS REFERENCES FOR FULL-TEXT STUDY, PART 3:

receive. Mk 6:11. *9:37-41. Lk *9:5, 48. 10:8, 10, 38, 39. 15:2. Jn 13:20, 34. Ac *9:26-28, 43. *11:25, 26. *16:15. 17:7. 2 C +*6:9. 7:2, 15. Ga 6:1. Ph 2:29. Col 4:10. 1 T 5:17. Phm 12, 17. He 13:1, 2. 1 P 2:17. 3:8. +*4:8-10. 1 J 3:14. 2 J %10. 3 J %8-10.

CROSS REFERENCE TEXTS

Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

This text in Mark 6:11 surely emphasizes the importance our Lord Jesus Christ placed upon “receiving one another.” Failure to receive a fellow believer who could well be or become an instrument in God’s hand to bring needed instruction or encouragement hinders the proclamation of the Gospel. Hindering the true Gospel by failing to receive its message bearers brings the possibility of severe repercussions, for Jesus said it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than it will be for those who failed to receive God’s messenger.

The fact that Scripture states here that the judgment of Sodom and Gommorah would be “more tolerable” should, as a point of Bible doctrine, alert us to this very clear teaching that there are degrees of punishment in hell.

I have already proven from Matthew 25:46, the last prior citation of Scripture at the end of Part 2 of the cross references for Romans 15:7, that eternal punishment will last just as long as eternal life will. Since eternal life never ends, neither does eternal destruction or eternal punishment, anymore than God will ever end, for His eternal duration is described by the very same Greek word. “Eternal” in this connection does not describe finality of result, but unending duration of the punishment, punishment which includes torment (Luke 16:24. See also Isaiah 33:14 and Matthew 8:29 in this regard).

Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
Mar 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Mar 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

The disciples had been arguing amongst themselves who should be the greatest. Mark in his Gospel gives a much abbreviated account of what is reported more fully in Matthew and Luke of similar discussions and questions that arose among the disciples.

For example:

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

In this passage Jesus plainly commands that there should be no hierarchy established in His organization or his church. Such a device was the province of the Gentile rulers, but among the followers of Christ, Jesus commanded “It shall not be so among you.”

Most denominations seem to have ignored this passage. Most local churches have ignored it too. Some denominations pride themselves that they are in strict obedience to this command of Christ, yet in some cases such denominations have a more tightly closed fellowship than most other churches which do have a hierarchy!

Often the fruit of disobeying this command of Christ is the failure to “receive one another,” as commanded by Christ, and further commanded by Paul.

That Jesus considers this to be a most serious matter is confirmed by what He said in Mark 9:42,

Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

It is further confirmed by what Jesus said next:

Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Since the “fire is not quenched,” the fire continues in the eternal age which follows this present age, and continues forever.

Some argue that “unquenchable fire” is mentioned in the Old Testament where it simply means the fire could not be put out until the fire accomplished its object, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Surely the fire in Jerusalem was unquenchable, for the Jews could not put it out, and it accomplished God’s purpose of punishment. But that fire did end, it did not last forever. But those who would argue from such an example that the unquenchable fire Jesus threatens will likewise have an end once its mission is accomplished have forgotten the lesson about “eternal” that I presented from Scripture. Sometimes “eternal” is used in a finite sense with reference to things that pertain only to this world or this age. But when “eternal” is used with reference to what takes place in “the age to come” it has an infinite sense as to its duration. So with the word “unquenchable.” In this age, it is limited in duration; in the next age, the eternal age which follows this one, “unquenchable” has an infinite sense, and is unlimited in duration.

Again, this proves that Jesus taught that eternal punishment in hell never ends, but continues undiminished in intensity of torment forever. That is why Jesus said more about hell than anyone else in the New Testament. He warned us all to avoid it at all cost.

But notice Jesus spoke of this subject in the context of “receiving one another.” Jesus said whoever received Him received Him that sent Him, that is, God. Jesus also said that whoever failed to receive those He sent failed to receive Him.

Now the practical spiritual question to face is this: Have you truly received Christ?

Luk 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

Luk 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

We must be very careful about just who we respond to with the action of shaking “off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.” I had the unfortunate experience of having a local Jehovah Witness leader do just that to me. He had just told me that he looked up the cross references I had shared with him for Isaiah 55:3. He said he realized I was correct, and that he and his organization must be wrong. He told me he could not leave the organization because of his family, and because of his business ties to the congregation who formed a good part of his customer base. He said he was glad he did not have to fear eternal punishment, for he would “die just like a dog.” Unfortunately for him and everyone else who believes that mistaken doctrine of annihilation, God in His written Word the Bible does not offer that option!

Luke 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:

Luk 10:10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
Luk 10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Luk 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

Luk 10:38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
Luk 10:39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.

Martha and Mary clearly received Jesus into their home. Mary sat at the feet of Jesus and heard His word. That is an example of what we ought to do: receive one another as He commanded, and hear His Word.

Luk 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

Jesus received others, even those who were not received by “polite society.” Sinners were attracted to Christ, not repulsed by Christ. Yet we know from the record we have of what Jesus taught that he did not tone down his message to make it acceptable to them or anyone else.

I wonder if making doctrine acceptable is not one of the root causes behind the rationalistic approach to Bible doctrine practiced by some religious denominations who change the doctrine to fit their sensibilities, just like those who believe and teach the doctrine of annihilation do. The error behind this approach which rejects the doctrine of eternal punishment is the failure to understand the character of God taught in the Bible. Abraham understood this full well when he said (Genesis 18:25), “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Some would rather take it upon themselves to judge God and tell Him what is right, rather than receive the full truth of what is taught in the Bible.

If you must modify the Gospel Jesus preached and taught to fit your own preferences and mistaken notions about the character and attributes of God, you are not teaching the true Gospel, but a false Gospel which is not the Gospel at all but what Paul calls “another Gospel” (Galatians 1:8, 9), which places you under a severe Divine curse.

God’s Word says:

Psa 9:10 And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.

It also says:

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Eternal life is dependent upon knowing BOTH God and Jesus Christ. Only those who truly know God and Jesus Christ can be saved. The Psalmist stated that those who know God’s name will put their trust in God. The opposite is also true: those who do not know God’s name cannot put their trust in Him. Knowing God’s name means understanding and believing in His attributes–all of them, not just the ones we prefer. Instead, they will depend upon adherence to a creed, to keeping the commandments, to observing the Sabbath, to doing good works, but they will not in simple faith trust the promise of our Lord Jesus Christ,

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

It is pointedly a matter of obeying the command of Christ to “love one another, as I have loved you,” when we keep the command to “receive one another.”

Failure to receive one another is a failure to love one another as Christ commanded us to do.

The pastor who told me, “Jerry, you talk too much about the Bible and too much about the Lord” the first time he came to my home clearly failed to receive me. Nearly five years later after he and his church board rejected my membership application (I had been invited by them to attend and complete the membership class), he suggested that I “find a church that believes like you do and go there.” Now that is hardly receiving one another in the manner Jesus commanded. I shudder to think of the blood that is on the hands of those who made such a decision to reject me and my family. In other churches I’ve attended prior to that one I was well received. I was provided ministry opportunity like teaching Sunday school, which resulted in many young people coming to Christ, who for the most part are these many years later still committed to following Him according to His Word, the Bible. But in this community, where I was rejected, three young people just last week received life prison sentences for murder, an altogether senseless murder that took place in a house I pass everytime I go to town. Could the lives of those teenagers who planned and committed the terrible murder of one teen’s father and attempted murder of the mother (who was stabbed 20 times) have been changed by the Gospel? I certainly believe that is the case. There are some churches that have apparently failed to communicate the Gospel to the sinners in the community.

The pastor and church board that rejected my membership should have had me meet with them to explain myself, and demonstrate that my doctrine is strictly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Their church creed stated Christ would rule for 1000 years during the Millennium. I stated in my comments that while that is true, the Bible clearly teaches that Christ will reign forever on this earth (Luke 1:32, 33). The church statement of faith stipulated immersion as the mode of Christian baptism. I stated immersion is an acceptable mode, but the Bible speaks of sprinkling or pouring in connection with baptism as well (Hebrews 10:22). My membership was rejected over such very minor matters of doctrine.

I trust that pastors who may happen upon this commentary will take it to heart, and exercise their responsibility to thoroughly teach the truths related to Romans 15:7 as reflected in the associated cross references I have furnished. Teach these truths to your congregation. Teach these truths to your leadership. Failure to do so may well thwart the ministry of the Gospel to others in your midst and beyond your own congregation.

But the best in this series is yet to come, for I have not yet exhausted the presentation of these cross references for Romans 15:7, so “stay tuned” for the next installment!

This entry was posted in Verse-by-Verse Studies and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Romans 15:7 (with comments) Part 3

  1. A. Way says:

    Is Jesus saying, “Love me, or I’ll burn in hell for all eternity”? Can you command love? No.

    The Bible teaches clearly, that there will come a time when there will be no more death, or sorrow, or pain. This can’t be true if sinners are tormented for ever and ever. Of course, only the righteous have eternal life, so how can a sinner suffer for ever?

    Revelation 21:4 AKJV And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

    Yes, the wicked will suffer eternal punishment. They will dead and gone, forever. They can’t be having pain, or sorrow for those things will have passed away. (Revelation 21:4) Matthew 25:46 AKJV And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

  2. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Let me help you dig a bit deeper into this subject. You have cited Revelation 21:4,

    Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

    Now the proper question which must be addressed is the context: just whose eyes will God wipe all tears from? The answer is immediately apparent in the preceding verse:

    Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

    Now just who is it that is spoken of when it states “and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God”?

    This very statement is quoted from the Abrahamic Covenant. It applies to genuine believers who possess the faith of Abraham (Genesis 15:6). We who truly believe in Jesus Christ are included in the benefits of that covenant of promise (Ephesians 2:12).

    Therefore, the Bible teaches that pain and suffering end for those who are saved, but that promise by no means applies to those who are unsaved.

    Your argument fails therefore, because it is not true to the full truth plainly revealed in the Bible.

    Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

    Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
    Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

    Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
    Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    Lev 26:12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.

    Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

    Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
    Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
    Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

  3. A. Way says:

    Oh I see, thanks! The righteous will know that the sinner is suffering eternally and will be glad! Yeah, makes sense.

  4. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    It appears to me that you may be guilty of reading your denominational literature more than you have been reading your plain text Bible independently on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island. But I hope you will eventually learn from your visits to and study of this site to do Real Bible Study!

    You state:

    Oh I see, thanks! The righteous will know that the sinner is suffering eternally and will be glad! Yeah, makes sense.

    And just what does that have to do with the price of apples in China compared to the price of bananas in Bulgaria?

    You need to “produce your reasons” and back them up carefully with associated Scripture properly interpreted within the framework and guidelines of the 23 Rules of Interpretation fully given in the October 2010 archives here.

    I welcome further discussion on this theme, if you can find any Scripture (properly interpreted) to support your case.

  5. A. Way says:

    Jerry said: “We who truly believe in Jesus Christ are included in the benefits of that covenant of promise (Ephesians 2:12).”

    But Jerry – you deny spiritual Israel. With whom was the covenant made? God made His covenants with Abraham and his descendants. You believe in the literal restoration of Israel and the temple. The law only applied to Israel according to you. (I wonder, do you include animal sacrifices? I hope not!) But as Galatians says: Galatians 3:29 KJV And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Hmm. If a Christian is Abraham’s seed and an heir, then they are Israel.

    You said: “And just what does that have to do with the price of apples in China compared to the price of bananas in Bulgaria?” I have stated my scripture. Where is yours? God will wipe away ALL the tears from their eyes. You believe that Luke 16:20-31 is NOT a parable (even though scripture says that Jesus always taught using parables) and thus if this verse is not a parable, then there is literal communication between the suffering wicked in hell and the righteous living in “the bosom of Abraham”. If one can see the sufferings of those in hell, do you think they would not have any compassion? Would they be glad for their sufferings, eternal sufferings for 70 years of sin on this earth?

    The fact is, those that refuse salvation (healing) will die, perish, gone. God is the source of all life. If the sinners are keep alive to suffer eternal torment, then it is by action of God. For what purpose does God do this? As a threat to the redeemed? No, God is not doing this. The wages of sin is death, the natural consequence of sin. Death is just that – death. Eternal non-existence.

  6. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    You ask an interesting question,

    If one can see the sufferings of those in hell, do you think they would not have any compassion? Would they be glad for their sufferings, eternal sufferings for 70 years of sin on this earth?

    May I suggest that you will find much additional insight upon this Bible question by carefully consulting the cross references at Isaiah 66:24 from either The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible. I do not think that the cross references in the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge are complete enough to carry out such a study with its existing references.

    Now as to the other issue you bring up, Israel versus Spiritual Israel, the existence of the latter does not cancel the promises or the existence of the former, and surely the latter does not replace the former.

    It is likely that your sources for Bible study do not give a very complete listing or account of the specific provisions found in the Abrahamic Covenant. The same might well be said for the Davidic covenant. None of the sources I have do. But everything else in the Bible basically relates to those two great unconditional Covenants.

    The cross references I supplied for the New Treasury and the Cross Reference Guide at Genesis 12:2-3 and especially Isaiah 55:3 will give you a good start on these most important subjects for Bible study.

    I am daily finding more references to add that link back to one or the other of these two covenants. I have now developed an extensive listing of the provisions in the Abrahamic Covenant and a listing for the provisions of the Davidic Covenant. I did not have this material developed at the time I worked on the NTSK or the CRG. I am placing this information in the current work I am developing for future software use.

    Until you have a much greater understanding of these two covenants you will remain largely in the dark about many of the things God declares are included in his future plans.

    As to the future animal sacrifices during the reign of Christ, there is good evidence that these will be restored as a memorial of what Christ did in his great sacrifice on the cross, but students of Scripture may differ on this point. See Isaiah 56:7 and its cross references to find what I found in Scripture about this.

    If the Temple of Ezekiel in the last portion of Ezekiel, chapters 40-48, is literal and future, there seem to be sacrifices associated with it. But there is an if/then statement somewhere in that stretch of chapters that may confine that Temple to Ezekiel’s own day, promised for the Jews if they met the specified conditions. The Jews did not meet those conditions, so the Temple was not built to those specifications in Ezekiel’s time. I am only as far as Ezekiel 36:25 tonight, so I have a ways to go before I study those latter chapters of Ezekiel again. There is mention in Zechariah 6 of a millennial temple to be built by the Messiah at what we now would call the Second Advent.

    You yourself, as I vaguely recall, have brought up interesting references at the end of Isaiah that mention the continuation/restoration of certain feasts of Israel in the Millennium, and if animal sacrifices are associated with these, then I guess they may continue. What have you found or noticed in your studies of these matters?

  7. A. Way says:

    What I understand, you reject, so what does it matter? The 70 week prophesy of Daniel shows that Jesus caused the sacrifices to cease, Daniel 9:27 AKJV And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease… Jesus died on the cross in the middle of the 70th week. He was antitype of the entire sacrificial system. His death did away with sacrifice. Sure, we know that the Jews continued the sacrifices until the destruction of the temple. But that is because they did not believe in the Messiah. But since you break up the 70 week prophesy, by an “unannounced” break in the timeline, you do not see this, you can’t see this. The 70 week prophesy also shows the end of Israel as the covenant people. The “vineyard” was “let out unto other husbandmen”. Read Matthew 21:41 and Isaiah 5:1-7. Then read: Galatians 3:27-29 ESV For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. Ephesians 3:6 ESV This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

    “Israel” continues, but it is now all who believe in Jesus. All who are Christ’s are Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to the promise. It can’t be any clearer. It matters not if you are a Jew. The only thing that matters, is if you are Christ’s.

  8. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I think you need to go back and re-study the provisions of both the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants.

    You are clearly totally in the dark on the central provisions of those covenants.

    You cannot hope to understand much of the Bible or Bible prophecy without a grasp of the provisions of these covenants.

    Of course, one can understand enough spiritual truth from reading the Gospel of John to believe in Christ and so receive Him as Lord and Savior and thus be saved without knowing anything about these covenants, but going further in Bible understanding requires that we learn more about what God has already promised, and what those promises are, and to and for whom the promises were made.

    If you need help in finding out those covenant provisions and the related Scripture, please let me know. The cross references are not fully given in either the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible, but a beginning can be found by starting at Isaiah 55:3 for the Davidic Covenant, and Genesis 12:2, 3 and Genesis 15:18 with Genesis 13:15 for the Abrahamic Covenant. Be sure to follow the links marked with the “+” symbol to the additional reference points which contain more references. I have given much more in the resource I am currently creating for future use in software form.

  9. A. Way says:

    Nice Jerry – a personal attack, yet you did not argue against the scripture I quoted, which makes very clear statements who is part of Israel. So who is in the dark? You claim a Robinson Caruso experience, yet cling to a fabrication of prophesy “invented” in the dark ages. You did not come to your interpretation by sitting on a island as you make people believe you did.

    For those visiting this website, understand that Jerry is a Futurist, and his belief he did not find on a deserted island. It originated with Catholic theologians. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_%28Christianity%29

    The futurist view was first proposed by two Catholic writers, Manuel Lacunza and Francisco Ribera. Lacunza wrote under the pen name “Ben-Ezra”, and his work was banned by the Catholic Church. It has grown in popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries, so that today it is probably most readily recognized. Books about the “rapture” by authors like Hal Lindsey, and the more recent Left Behind novels (by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye) and movies, have done much to popularize this school of thought.</blockquote.

    Now if you believe this creation of men, great. But there are other interpretations which fit the Bible without having to do any monkey business such as having "unannounced" gaps in the timeline.

    People need to understand that this website is a commercial site to sell books, namely, NCRG.

  10. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I certainly am not attacking you. I am not selling books at this site. I encourage all to learn how to study the Bible independently on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island.

    I most certainly did NOT get my prophetic views from the Roman Catholics. That is a misstatement on your part which needs to be repented of.

    I have explained very clearly in repeated statements on many comments and articles on this site my spiritual journey and where and how I learned as much as I do know. I have repeatedly stated that I am always ready to learn more. I have explained how anyone can benefit by doing Real Bible Study.

    It appears from your most recent comment on this thread that you are not open at all to learning anything new. You certainly indicate by your response that you misread a genuine offer on my part to share with you what I have lately found in my own studies of the Bible regarding the specific provisions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant.

    If you aren’t interested, that is fine. To each his own.

    As for this being a commercial site to promote the sale of my books, search this site to your heart’s content, and you will find no link here to a source for buying my books.

    But when someone like me offers to assist you in Bible study by sharing what I have found freely, and you reject that offer with snide remarks and unsupportable and fallacious attacks on my prophetic understanding of the Bible, that is hardly the mark of Christian love and “receiving one another” on your part.

    As I recall, a while ago on this site, I presented several challenges to you to meet to substantiate your statements against mine, asking for specific evidence. Regarding those, you have remained absolutely silent. In case you forgot, you claimed I have furnished biased cross references in my two works of cross references. I asked you for an example and none have been forthcoming. You made claims against my findings regarding the existence of time gaps in Bible prophecy, including a gap in the context of Daniel 9:27, which you denied. I gave further proof which you know you cannot answer. Time gaps must of necessity exist in statements of predictive Bible prophecy because we know from their accurate fulfillment in history that the fulfillments did not take place all at one time, as in a single year, but different aspects of the predictions were fulfilled years apart. Proof: the predictions concerning the fate of the city of Tyre in Ezekiel’s prophecy.

    It begins to look like you have just one motive: to convert visitors to this site to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its doctrines!

    Just the same, I continue to receive you and welcome your continued posting of comments here. I pray, however, that you will become more open to “receiving one another,” and to receiving additional knowledge of the Bible that will help you or anyone understand it more accurately.

    Just now I have been working on expanding the cross references at Deuteronomy 26:17, 18 because this passage is referred to in the cross references in Ezekiel 36:28 where I am currently working to expand the references available for Real Bible Study. Even these passages are directly related to the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, as my newly found and provided cross references show. A study of these references would correct anyone who truly believes the Bible for what it says in their understanding of God’s plan for Israel and for Spiritual Israel. It is not a matter of either/or, it is both/and. The Replacement Theology which you adhere to (that the Church replaced Israel) is utterly mistaken and is not the teaching of the Bible, for it directly contradicts God’s oath-bound Covenants to the nation of Israel.

    Here are the references as I currently at this moment have them that I am working on:

    Deuteronomy 26:17, 18–

    17. avouched. Dt **5:2, 3. Ex 15:2. 20:19. 24:7. Jsh 24:22. 2 Ch 34:31. Is 12:2. 44:5. Zc 13:9. Ac 27:23. Ro 6:13. 1 C 6:19, 20. 2 C 8:5. this day. ver. 16. 1 T 6:12. to be thy God. Ge 4:26. +**17:8. 28:21. Ex 15:2. 2 Ch 23:16. Ps 50:7. 91:2. 105:7. Je +*24:7. 30:22. 32:38. Ho *2:23. Ml +*3:17. and to walk. See on Dt 10:12, 13. 13:4, 5. 30:16. Jsh 22:5. 1 K 2:3, 4. Col +*1:10. to keep his statutes. Dt 4:1n. 13:18. Ps 119:57. 147:19, 20. Lk 11:28. his commandments. ver. 18. Ex 19:8. Jsh 10:40. 24:21. Je 2:20. his judgments. Dt 4:1n. hearken. Dt 13:18. 15:5. Mk 4:24. Lk 8:18. voice. Dt 8:20. Jn 10:3, 4, *5, **27.
    18. And the Lord. Ge 4:26. his peculiar people. Dt 7:6. 14:2. 28:9. 29:13. 32:9. Ge +**17:8. Ex 6:7. 15:16. 19:5, 6. Le 20:26. 2 S +**7:24. 1 Ch *17:22. Ps *50:7. 105:7. 135:4. Is 43:4. Je 13:11. 31:32-34. Ezk 36:25-28. Am **3:2. Ml +*3:17. T **2:14. 1 P **2:9. keep all his commandments. ver. +17. Ps 119:6, 57. Mt 5:19. Jn 14:15. Ro *16:26. 1 J +**2:3n.

    Kindly take note of the cross references for the keywords “his peculiar people” for Deuteronomy 26:18 above. They furnish the key to much of the truth about these matters, especially if taken with Ephesians 2:12-22.

  11. A. Way says:

    It appears from your most recent comment on this thread that you are not open at all to learning anything new. You certainly indicate by your response that you misread a genuine offer on my part to share with you what I have lately found in my own studies of the Bible regarding the specific provisions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant.

    If you aren’t interested, that is fine. To each his own.

    It is interesting that you wish to teach OT covenants, and yet repeatedly you have shown to have no understanding of the OT temple services. Those things which are a type of the Messiah to come.

    I most certainly did NOT get my prophetic views from the Roman Catholics. That is a misstatement on your part which needs to be repented of.

    Are you telling me that you learned these things out of thin air? I doubt it. Here are just a few that follow the teaching of Jesuit Francisco Ribera, are: William Burgh, John Darby, Harry A. Ironside, Hal Lindsey, John F. MacArthur, Samuel R. Maitland, J. Vernon McGee, Henry M. Morris, John Bertram Phillips, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Ray Stedman, J. H. Todd, John Walvoord, Warren W. Wiersbe.

    Did you ever study any of work of these people, or any others that follow this view? Is so, then you have studied teaching the Catholics. Not all Catholics to be sure, and maybe not even current teaching, but Catholic none the less. Can you tell me with an honest face that you figured out futurism in a vacuum, on a desert island, ship wrecked only with the Bible, all by yourself? Please, do tell me, where did you learn futurism? I’d am really curious. As if yet, I do not see anything to repent (change my mind) of.

    The work of this view is very good at throwing people off the real antichrist, the beast power, and those that form the image of the beast. The reformers had many ideas, some weird, but were uniform in their opinion of who the antichrist was, but now protestants are making friends of the system that they rejected. Futurism makes Revelation irrelevant, its study not very meaningful to the followers of Christ, since they will be raptured and not experience the tribulation. This view will make the adherents unprepared for what is soon to come, when the rapture (not to be confused with the second coming of Christ) does not happen.

    I just googled “Historicist” and found the following quote which I think fits:

    “As to Futurism ]as started by Jesuit Ribera], for some three centuries this view was virtually confined to Romanists, and was refuted by several masterly Protestant works. But early in the nineteenth century it sprang forth afresh, this time among Protestants – Samuel R. Maitland, William Burgh, J. H. Todd, and more recently it has been adopted by most Fundamentalists. In 1826 Maitland revived Ribera’s Futurist interpretation in England. The Plymouth Brethren, organized in 1830 by John Nelson Darby, at Dublin and Plymouth, also laid hold on Maitland’s interpretation. And when the High-Church Oxford Movement (1833-1845) gained ascendancy in Britain, it rejected the Protestant Historical School of interpretation and generally adopted Futurism, though some among them swung to Preterism. Bursting into full flame in 1833, it seized upon Maitland’s interpretation as an argument in favor of reunion with Rome. German rationalism, on the other hand, increasingly flouted prophecy and prediction. Thus the Jesuit schemes of counter-interpretation were more successful than their authors had ever dared anticipate.”

    So please, show me what I need to repent of. Did you get this on your deserted “island”? Or did you get it from “protestant” followers of Ribera? I do not believe you thought it up yourself…

  12. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    You ask some interesting questions, and I shall attempt to answer them for you.

    I began reading the Bible, particularly the New Testament, in earnest in August of 1953. At the time I had no idea what that would lead to. My motivation was to learn enough so I would not feel and perhaps look so dumb in the high school Sunday school class I attended at Highland Park Baptist Church taught by Mr. Dean Sawdon and Mr. John Boyko.

    In November of 1953, Saturday, November 7th, to be exact, I thought about what I had read and realized I had never actually received Christ as my Savior. I stopped on Lumpkin Street under a little oak tree that overhung the sidewalk and prayed silently to receive Christ as Savior, to receive forgiveness of sin, and have been assured from Scripture ever since that time that I know that I now have eternal life (John 5:24).

    My parents gave me a very fine leather-bound zippered Scofield Bible at Christmas of 1953 which I foolishly loaned to a good friend who was attending Bob Jones University, and he wore it out and ruined the cover in just one semester. My parents were furious, and I am embarrassed to have done such a thing. But that means I surely was not studying that Scofield Reference Bible. I had not before seen one, and did not understand its value, and knew nothing of its content at that point.

    You list a good many authors that have written books that take the Futurist position. I did not learn what I know from any of them, though I now own some books by Walvoord on the rapture and other prophetic themes.

    I believe I learned my understanding of Bible prophecy by simply reading the New Testament. Concerning the Rapture, the doctrine is rather obviously taught in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. I did not need an author to teach me that, I’m sure.

    When I attended Bob Jones University I took one course in Old Testament Prophecy taught by Professor Stewart Custer. But that course did not cover any New Testament prophetic themes. I was not able to take Professor Custer’s New Testament Prophecy course, so I clearly did not learn it from him or any of the many readings or sources we were assigned to read for the Old Testament Prophecy course. The textbook for that course was by Girdlestone, The Grammar of Prophecy, which does not touch on the topics pertaining to futurism that I recall.

    My main source of learning about Bible prophecy came about as I typed up the text for the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. As I worked through the chapters of the Bible I created a Subject Index on 4 x 6 cards. Fortunately for me, I kept the topics related to Bible prophecy in a separate stack, since I was highly interested in the subject. You can readily see the fruit of that ongoing study if you consult my note on Isaiah 11:11 in either The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible.

    Professor Custer included as one of the sources we were required to read from a work by Mr. George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, a large work of three volumes. Professor Custer highly recommended that we make that the next book we purchased, and of course he highly commended the book, saying that the book was for a long time unavailable until Kregel Publishers reprinted it. I bought the set from Kregel’s Bookstore in Grand Rapids shortly after I graduated from Bob Jones University. I was fascinated by Dr. Wilbur Smith’s introduction to the volume, and learned that Peters was one of half a dozen of the greatest American prophetic scholars in the nineteenth century. I began immediately to read those volumes in sequence, but got only as far as page 418 of volume one, where my red tasseled laminated linen marker still is!

    I went back to studying the volumes by Peters when I decided to search for cross references that pertained to Bible prophecy. At the back of Volume 3 there is a Scripture Index, quite extensive, which I scoured carefully, and the results are listed in the Subject Index of the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge under “Peters” on page 1568.

    I had met Pastor Norman Douty through a Greek scholar friend of mine, Mr. G. E. Hoyer who lived in Chicago. Both men were familiar with and shared materials from the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony in England. I obtained many books, booklets, and leaflets as well as the Watching and Waiting magazine published by the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony.

    These sources from SGAT are actually all contrary to the position I held then and hold now, such that in some measure I can say I have read more material that is against my view than I have read for my view.

    One book I have read which fairly gives the evidence for each of many views on Bible prophecy is by Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come.

    Most of my time studying Bible prophecy has been spent directly from Scripture.

    Peters soundly refutes the views you have cited from the Internet and elsewhere regarding the alleged source of the Premillennial view. Peters demonstrates in depth, citing original sources, that the Premillennial view he holds, and that I hold, was held by the Apostles and the Early Church. It did not start with the Romanists, and it surely did not start with Darby.

    Darby emphasized a central truth that many with contrary views have missed: Israel has NOT been replaced by the Church. Peters shows that view, what is now called Replacement Theology by some, was popularized if not started in modern times by Whitby, and in Peters the view is called Whitbyism, if I recall correctly.

    In my judgment, after having made a long and careful repeated study of Peters, no one who espouses views contrary to what Peters demonstrates are the true teaching of Scripture can knowledgeably hold such views as being Bible truth if they have not made a careful study of Peters’ work and successfully refuted his research.

    So, did I learn my view of Bible prophecy alone on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island? I would judge that indeed I have. But I have advanced my studies of the subject by reading the careful researches of other scholars on the subject too. Once one has a solid foundation from studying the Scripture itself, consulting other authorities to learn more is perfectly fine. I often find that the experts came up with the same findings I did in my own studies. But I am always open to learning more, and open to being corrected given sufficient Biblical evidence.

  13. ken sagely says:

    jerry thank you for your sharing. i have learned alot from how you study and the books you studied very helpful to me! excellent! correct me if i am wrong thomas scott polygot bible wasnt the first study bible and it was all scripture? scofield bible came in 1917 and its still going strong although the dispensational teaching isnt as strong as it was. what i am trying to say if one studies the bible on crusoes island and the crgb he can learn the scriptures thats what i believe.

  14. ken sagely says:

    mr way your really missing a blessing by not having a copy of nelsons cross ref guide to the bible. do you have one?

  15. A. Way says:

    “One book I have read which fairly gives the evidence for each of many views on Bible prophecy is by Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come.” Pentecost is another follower of the Jesuit Ribera. Scofield is another. You may believe you have come to your conclusions in isolation. Yet, it appears that you have indeed be indoctrinated by the Jesuits, and do not even know it. You read the Bible with Futurist glasses. I read with Historicist glasses. I could lay out the path I took to my view as you have, thank you by the way. The historical view fits scripture better. It explains what happened in the Dark Ages. It points out the beast system which the reformers were all in agreement with. Note – the reformers had many wrong ideas, but you need to consider what they were coming out of. To deflect the Catholic system from being reveals for what it was, the Jesuits were started for the counter reformation. Preterism and Futurism are part of that counter reformation. Your world view (futurism) looks at my world view and you believe me to be greatly deceived, misinterpret scripture, and lack understanding. My world view looks at what you believe, and believe you to be greatly deceived, and misinterpreting scripture. Let everyone be persuaded in their own mind…

    What I see happening fits Revelation. Example, Revelation 12:9 AKJV “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceives the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” The majority of the earth will be deceived.

    I wonder what you think of the reformation… Do you think they (the reformers) were all wrong? Should they have rebelled against “the church”? You do know why the reformation failed…

    Oh well. Thank you for pointing out your path to your understanding. In my view, you have fallen for futurism, which is a Jesuit creation, to squash the reformation. Revelation 18:4 AKJV And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For a futurist, this verse does not have much meaning for them…

  16. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Thank you for your kinder response.

    I cannot expect you to seek out the volumes by Peters and read his full refutation of your characterization of Futurism. But he did write a full refutation which has never been answered and probably never can be answered.

    It is a mystery how a lonely Lutheran pastor, for much of his life too ill to be active in Lutheran ministry, could have accessed the thousands of volumes he carefully cites in his great three volume work. Dr. Wilbur Smith mentions this in his biographical introduction too.

    I know from long, first-hand study, that Peters had read thoroughly and fully understood the sources he cited, because in my personal library here I have some of those rare books and have studied them myself. One that sits on the shelf here in the living room with other works on apologetics has a fairly detailed table of contents but no index. The points Peters makes regarding this book could never be derived from a casual glance at the book or even a study of the Table of Contents alone. One would have had to carefully read and probably reread the book to understand it well enough to make the critical points Peters did. The book I am referring to is The Bible and Modern Thought by Rev. T. R. Birks internally dated October 10, 1861 on page 4. It is a volume of 436 pages, divided into 19 chapters. I believe I likely obtained the volume through Mr. G. E. Hoyer years ago.

    Birks is cited by Peters about 20 times according to the index entry in volume 3 on page 637.

    By the way, Peters makes no reference to Ribera in his volumes. He makes no reference to Jesuits, though I recall he roundly criticized the Roman Catholic Church. Peters has seven references to Maitland in his volumes. The first mention Peters makes of Maitland is in Volume 2, at the top of page 350. This is in Peters chapter, Proposition 131: This Kingdom embraces the visible reign of Jesus, the Christ, here on earth.

    Observation 1 states: So distinctly is this taught that no Jew, no Christian believer, no one who read the Scriptures doubted this, until the Alexandrian system evolved a series of doctrines, under the notion of exalting the truth and the Son, in which the throne promised David’s Son was transformed into a throne in the third heaven.

    Observation 2 states: Having in previous Propositions shown with sufficient distinctness that David’s Son, Jesus in His humanity, must, if the prophecies are fulfilled, appear in a visible reign; that He does thus manifest Himself to the sight of all, it is unnecessary (as coming Propositions will materially add reasons for our doctrine to those already given) to enter into a detailed argument, since it is nowhere asserted that the visibility thus exhibited shall ever be withdrawn, and since the denial of such a visible reign is one of pure inference. No one, that we are aware of, has ever yet presented a passage of Scripture to prove the invisibility of the reign in the future.

    Observation 8 states: Our argument is cumulative, and to avoid undue repeating we pass by the prophetical reasoning to be drawn from Daniel, chapters 2, 7, etc. … It is in the very nature of a manifested Theocracy that there should be (as already foreshown in the past Theocratic arrangement), not simply faith, but sight. Dr. Brown (Christ’s Second Coming, P. 2, ch. 5) emphatically declares that there is “no Millennial mixture of faith and sight.” He takes to task Brookes’s saying, that “in the Millennial state there will be an open vision of Christ,” and that “it will be a dispensation in which the saints will continually have personal access to Christ.” He censures Elliott for teaching a “visibly manifested conjunction of the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem; he condemns Lord for saying that the nations have access to the glorified (symbolized by the open gates, etc.), and that “they are never to be without the visible presence of God; that its gates are never shut, and that the nations are to enjoy uninterrupted access to the glorified.” He ridicules Birks, McNeile, Bickersteth, and Maitland for teaching such a visible revelation and such an access to the city, such a “seeing the Lord of Hosts manifested in the human nature of Jesus reigning in Mt. Zion,” such a visible manifestation of glory that impresses the nations, and such a change in dispensation that sight shall also be introduced. Of course, any one who denies that the sight of Jesus (Zechariah 12:10; Ezekiel 20:35) will influence the future conversion of the Jews; who rejects the seeing of Matthew 23:39; Zechariah 14:1, etc.; who finds no place in his system of theology for the everlasting Covenant of David; who spiritualizes Jerusalem, Mt. Zion, etc., and denies a future incoming dispensational change–can find nothing of sight, no matter how plainly presented. [page 350]

    Now take careful note that Peters is simply citing the authorities Brown is criticizing, not using these authorities as his own point of reference from which he develops his views.

    As I recall, Dr. Wilbur Smith writes in his introduction that he is amazed at how immediately up-to-date Peters was in studying the latest works of his opponents (like Dr. Brown), and states Peters was the first to give a full scholarly criticism of Brown’s then new work on the Second Coming.

    Yesterday I shared with you the following cross references from Deuteronomy 26:18,

    his peculiar people. Dt 7:6. 14:2. 28:9. 29:13. 32:9. Ge +**17:8. Ex 6:7. 15:16. 19:5, 6. Le 20:26. 2 S +**7:24. 1 Ch *17:22. Ps *50:7. 105:7. 135:4. Is 43:4. Je 13:11. 31:32-34. Ezk 36:25-28. Am **3:2. Ml +*3:17. T **2:14. 1 P **2:9.

    Let me just place before you just several of the clearest references given:

    Amo 3:1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying,
    Amo 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

    Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

    1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

    The Bible teaches emphatically (Amos 3:2) that God has only chosen one earthly nation, as a nation, for his peculiar people, for his special care reflected in the oath-bound promises called Covenants which He has sworn are inviolable and unconditional and will be fulfilled as promised to the very nation, people, and individuals to whom the Covenants were given unconditionally.

    Paul states this unequivocally:

    Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. (NET Bible)

    In context, “the gifts” are a reference to the Covenants made to Israel.

    Yet the New Testament includes genuine believers in Christ as being God’s “peculiar people,” God’s “holy nation.”

    In this church age believers, Jew or Gentile, make up one body, His Church, as Paul clearly affirms in his epistles.

    In this dispensation, called by many students of Scripture the “church age,” both saved Jews and saved Gentiles in this one body constitute Spiritual Israel.

    Spiritual Israel cannot replace the literal nation of Israel, to whom God yet promises to fulfill his irrevocable covenants.

    Any reader of the Bible who has carefully considered the latter portion of Leviticus 26 will recognize these truths as taught from the beginning of Israel’s history, for God foretold that they would wander and become apostate from Him. But he also plainly declared as clear as any language can make it that they, the literal nation of Israel, would be restored to Him.

    Lev 26:33 And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.
    Lev 26:34 Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies’ land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths.
    Lev 26:35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.
    Lev 26:36 And upon them that are left alive of you I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth.
    Lev 26:37 And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies.
    Lev 26:38 And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.
    Lev 26:39 And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them.
    Lev 26:40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
    Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
    Lev 26:42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.
    Lev 26:43 The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes.
    Lev 26:44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.
    Lev 26:45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.

    The expression “that I might be their God” is directly cited from the Abrahamic Covenant itself:

    Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    These Scriptures fully and totally settle the issue in my favor.

  17. A. Way says:

    Quote:”These Scriptures fully and totally settle the issue in my favor.”

    I would put it this way, it is totally settled “in your mind. “

  18. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I trust you know very well in your mind that these Scriptures assert and confirm the position I have taken regarding the nation Israel in the light of Bible prophecy.

    Are you trying to contradict what the Bible directly states?

    And I have not resorted to ad hominem attacks against your position as have the sources you cited against mine.

    You know that suggesting that “Futurism” originated with Jesuits trying to play a trick on Protestants to divert attention from Protestant assertions that the Pope is the Antichrist is a species of ad hominem, don’t you?

    The question is not whether some Jesuits came up with something the enemies of the truth of Biblical prophecy identify with “Futurism,” but is the truth of Futurism sustained by the content of the Bible. And since it is, Futurism is correct, and other positions are wrong, for they are NOT sustained by a careful literal reading and interpretation of the Bible.

    I furnished you with direct Scripture above, and even highlighted some of it in boldface to call attention to the most significant statements of the promise God gave to the nation of Israel in Leviticus 26.

    Your reaction? As I understand your reaction, you reject this Bible truth.

    You can’t get away with the cop-out that the “proof” is just in my own mind. The proof is in the Scriptures, and I gave you the direct proof from the Scripture.

    So far, it is clear you cannot answer this proof, because it is unanswerable.

  19. A. Way says:

    Quote:”You know that suggesting that “Futurism” originated with Jesuits trying to play a trick on Protestants to divert attention from Protestant assertions that the Pope is the Antichrist is a species of ad hominem, don’t you?”

    If I were making an emotional appeal, then yes. But if history is on my side, then all I can say is that you have been mislead. You have futurism eyes and do not see with my eyes. To an evolutionist, everything is evolution, in spite of the facts. So yes, it still is your opinion. And I doubt that I will change it. I’ve been over this ground. I’ve look at the evidence. My conclusion is that futurism is a lie. And it is a product of the counter reformation. I’ve given in the past the reasons for my conclusions. You just continue to think that I have not studied the issue. Sorry Jerry. You are unconvincing.

    Galatians 3:29 ESV And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. Ephesians 3:6 ESV This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. It can’t get any clearer than that. The promises of God to Abraham apply to all that are in Christ because they are true heirs. The law too.

  20. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    A bit further back in this discussion you said:

    But Jerry – you deny spiritual Israel. With whom was the covenant made? God made His covenants with Abraham and his descendants. You believe in the literal restoration of Israel and the temple. The law only applied to Israel according to you. (I wonder, do you include animal sacrifices? I hope not!) But as Galatians says: Galatians 3:29 KJV And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Hmm. If a Christian is Abraham’s seed and an heir, then they are Israel.

    I trust that now, having carefully read my subsequent exposition directly from Scripture itself, that you understand I do not deny “Spiritual Israel.” Spiritual Israel is descriptive of the One Body (Ephesians 4:4) composed of Jews and Gentiles that believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, for salvation in this dispensation subsequent to the Cross and the bodily resurrection of Christ “until He comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26), commonly spoken of in many Bible believing circles as the Church Age.

    What I do deny is Replacement Theology, defined for the purposes of this discussion as the teaching that the nation of Israel alone called by God as His own nation (Amos 3:2) has been permanently abandoned as a nation and replaced by the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Another name in the history of theology is the “Church-Kingdom Theory.”

    Here is a passage of Scripture for you to carefully “sink your teeth into.”

    Isaiah 60:21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

    From my now expanded edition of the notes and cross references supplied originally in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge for Isaiah 60:21,

    21. people. Is 4:3, 4. 52:1. 62:4. Zc *14:20, 21. 2 P *3:13. Re *21:27. all righteous. T#441. Is 1:26. 26:2. +*27:9. 32:16. 33:5. 35:8-10. 45:25. 52:1. 54:14. *61:3. 62:2, 12. 65:25. Dt +30:6 (T#506). Jb +5:24. Ps +130:8. Je *31:33, 34. Ezk *36:25-29. 37:23, 24. Da +*9:24n. Ob 17. Na 1:15. Zp +*3:13. Zc 14:20. Mt 1:21. Lk 1:68. Ro 11:25-27. Re 21:27. inherit. Ps 37:9, 11, 18, 22. Je 31:23. Mt +*5:5. Re 5:10. 21:7. the land. 2 Ch +*20:7. Ezk 36:14. Zc 3:9. Am +*9:15. Mt +*5:5. Ac +*7:5. for ever. Heb. olam, Ex +*12:24. This settles the whole question as to any fulfillment in the past (CB). Note the straightforward promise here, that Israel is to inherit the land forever. Such a promise requires a literal fulfillment, which has not yet been accomplished (He +*11:39); but since God cannot lie (T 1:2), the fulfillment is reserved for the future. This promise, repeated many times and in many ways (Is +*41:9. +*55:3. Ge +*17:8. 2 Ch +*20:7), renders the “church-kingdom” theory (often reflected in the headnotes and chapter or page running heads of various editions of the Authorized Version) utterly false, since such a theory denies the literal fulfillment of these promises to Israel, and applies them to the church, or to “spiritual Israel.” The inconsistency of such a method of interpretation is readily seen when the blessings are eagerly applied to the church, but the curses are literally applied to Israel! Peters (Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 2, p. 90, footnote 5) states “The great spiritual blessings are promised to the identical people that suffered dispersion from their land, and are so repeatedly linked with a return to the same land from which they were driven, that it is folly to apply these to the Church as now constituted, and not to the time, place, and people for whom they are intended.” Peters notes that the multiplicity of prophetic detail forbids any spiritualized application to the Church: “The election of the nation, the rejection for a time, the Theocratic relationship, the absolute promises, the gathering from all countries and bringing into their own land, the personal appearance of the Messiah and effect upon them, the time of this Advent, the distressed condition of the nation, the miraculous attending the conversion and restoration, the aid tendered by Gentiles, the formation into a State, the union of the two nations, the vast multiplication, and a hundred more particulars, are all of such a nature, and so connected, that they forbid any other view.” Biblical references for each of these details of predictive prophecy named by Peters will be found in the note for Is 11:11n, or in the index, particularly entries under “Israel.” Each school of prophetic interpretation seems quite aware of the interpretative mistakes of the opposing school, while remaining unaware of its own. There are two extremes to be avoided: spiritualization and speculation. Amillennialists wisely caution against speculation, Premillennialists rightly caution against spiritualization. Is 11:11n. +41:9. +55:3. Ge 17:8. 2 Ch 20:7. Ezk +**37:25. Am +**9:15. He +11:39. the branch. Is +4:2, 3. 26:15. 29:23. 35:2. 41:19. 43:7. 45:11. 51:16. 55:13. 61:3. 1 Ch 17:9. Ps *92:13. Pr 11:28. SS 4:13. Je 2:21. Ezk 47:12. Am +**9:15. Mt *15:13. Jn 15:2. the work. Is 29:23. 43:21. Hab *3:2. Jn 15:1, 8. Ro 16:15. 2 C 5:5. Ep **2:10. Ph 1:11. that I. Is 43:21. 44:23. 46:13. +49:3. Ac 11:18. Ep *1:6, 12. 2:7. 2 Th *1:10.

  21. A. Way says:

    Quote:”Isaiah 60:21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.”

    This is more that cross references, it is commentary. Under “the branch” it is interesting that you reference John 15:2, but do you mean to only reference 15:2? The whole of John 15 is important when discussing the subject of the branch and the vine. Example: John 15:5-6 ESV I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. This is not limited to Israel. It is whoever and anyone. This does not need to be fulfilled with a literal nation of Israel. There does not need to be a literal temple in Israel, in the sense as was in the time of old. 1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?

    Continuing on the branch, it is interesting that you do not cross reference Romans 11 under branches. Romans 11:21 ESV For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Who were the natural branches? And for all Jews, Romans 11:14 ESV in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. All of true Israel will be saved, and Israel are those attached the the vine (Jesus). The grafted branch is just as much a part as those that are natural branches and have not been broken off. You do quote this under “the branch”, John 15:2 ESV Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. And that is exactly right.

    Cross references are fine, but one has to read all around to get the true meaning. And in this way, I find your rather extensive set of verses, incomplete. Just a few more examples, under “inherit”, one could include Daniel 7:18 ESV But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.’ Who are the saints? Just a literal nation of Israel? Nope. One could include Revelation 21:3, and I’d throw in verse 4 also: Revelation 21:3-4 ESV And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

  22. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I won’t at this point contest the helpful additional references you suggest.

    It is generally understood that when reading a given cross reference found in The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge that, with open Bible in hand, one will read the context too.

    Nevertheless, even with your suggested further references, you have not, and probably cannot, address and answer the argument presented by Peters which I cited as a note to that verse.

  23. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Your suggested additional references for branch are very excellent, especially references in Romans 11. I hope to go back and work on those references after I finish Ezekiel 37.

    There are numerous cases where I have expanded the references given to include a fuller context. But this can’t be done everywhere, or it would be impossible to finish the task!

    But I want you to know that you have a good number of times been the impetus behind adding more and better references at many places.

    This evening I ran across a very interesting place in Ezekiel 37:7,

    7. I prophesied as. Je 13:5-7. 26:8. Ac 4:19. 5:20-29. there was a noise. or, voice. 1 K 19:11-13. Ac *2:2, 37. +9:4, 7. 16:26-29. *22:9. *26:13, 14. bones came together. Ezr 2:1. Je 50:4.

    The alternate reading “voice” for “noise” brought to mind the situation of Paul on the road to Damascus where he heard a voice and understood what was said, but those with him actually heard a sound but did not catch the words. That was the subject of an interesting home Bible study where some visitors who held to the “Hebrew Roots” view were presenting the variations in the account of Paul’s conversion as an example of a contradiction in Scripture, and tried to use that to assert that Paul was an apostate Jewish Rabbi who is not to be trusted because he could not keep his story straight. My wife pointed out that Luke, not Paul, records Paul’s divine call directly from our Lord Jesus Christ as stated in Acts 9:15,

    Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
    Act 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

    Then I pointed out that Peter calls the writings of Paul Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16, so there is no possible Scriptural basis for discounting the writings of Paul as somehow being questionable or of less authority in the NT.

    The visitors asked was I sure that the Greek text in 2 Peter is correct at that point. I said yes, for since I have studied the Greek text for many years with Mr. G. E. Hoyer in Chicago, I have many works devoted to the subject of manuscript differences and textual criticism, grammar and syntax, idiom, and so forth. I had never come across any textual question about Peter’s assertion. When I got home, I double checked, and found my memory held true, for there are no questions cast upon the text in 2 Peter in the manuscript tradition in any of the many sources I have in my library.

    But I thought you might like to know the “history” behind my added references at Ezekiel 37:7.

  24. A. Way says:

    Quote:”Nevertheless, even with your suggested further references, you have not, and probably cannot, address and answer the argument presented by Peters which I cited as a note to that verse.” You remind me of evolutionists. Their way is the only way, and they can’t see any possibility of an alternative. Peters comment is that – commentary, interpretation. It is not cross reference, and in my humble opinion, should not be in an unbiased reference, for it introduces the opinion of the author. Oh I can hear it now, it is not unbiased, it is unquestionable true, I must not have studied the Bible for real, if I only would study it more, etc… Sorry, unconvinced.

    I’m just make one example. Quote for your find work of Peters, “Note the straightforward promise here, that Israel is to inherit the land forever. ” Have you read the quotations I made above? All who are Christ’ are heirs according to the promise. They are Israel, they are God’s, they will inherit the land, forever. This does not prove the literal country of Israel will be the heirs. In fact, the NT is telling us that only those that are Christ’ are heirs. Only those branches attached to the true vine. In fact, there is no longer Jew or Greek, male of female. …

  25. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I hate to put it this way, but I really see that you may have a “mental block” when it comes to actually registering what you read in Scripture!

    The Scripture itself records God’s sworn oath and Covenant that the nation of Israel whom He has chosen will “inherit the land forever.”

    Now, for you to deny that indicates that you deny Scripture.

    And that is not engaging in Real Bible Study, but real Bible denial!

    I fully answered all the Scriptures which you quoted that you believe contradict my position when I asserted above:

    Now as to the other issue you bring up, Israel versus Spiritual Israel, the existence of the latter does not cancel the promises or the existence of the former, and surely the latter does not replace the former.

    I suggest you go back and read the Scriptures I cited at length above from the end of Leviticus again, with your “historicist glasses” off this time.

    The Scriptures you have cited which you think teach a different view most certainly do not. Paul affirms what I have been declaring most plainly in Romans chapters 9-11, particularly the verse I cited, Romans 11:29, and Romans 11:1, 2.

    Isaiah 60:21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.”

    Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.
    Isa 41:9 Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.

    Isa 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

    Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
    Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    2Ch 20:7 Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever?

    Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

    Amo 9:15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

    Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

    Act 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

    Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

    Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
    Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

    Lev 26:40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
    Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
    Lev 26:42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.
    Lev 26:43 The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes.
    Lev 26:44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.
    Lev 26:45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.

    Mr. A. Way, there is no possible legitimate way (following the 23 Rules of Interpretation in the October 2010 Archives here) that you can avoid the teaching of God Himself in Scripture that the nation of Israel which He has chosen will inherit their land forever.

    To teach and suggest otherwise is the direct denial of very clear and repeated teaching of Scripture.

    Amo 3:1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying,
    Amo 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

    Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

    Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
    Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
    Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

  26. A. Way says:

    See – just like what evolutionist say – I do not read the evidence your way, thus I am wrong, I have not studied the data, I do not study right, I’m ignoring the “clear evidence”, etc… Who has the mental block? Sorry Jerry – you are not convincing in your arguments. You are convinced in your mind. Fine.

  27. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    If you are right, then there is no truth that can be ascertained from the Bible or anywhere else. It is all in your mind.

    The comparison with the scientific doctrine (or fable, depending upon one’s vantage point) of evolution is invalid because evolution is not based upon a completed verbal text from the hand of God himself written by Divine revelation. The Bible is.

    Jesus said, regarding what for many readers must be a most difficult book of prophecy, the book of Daniel, “whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matthew 24:15).
    Jesus assumes and asserts, therefore, that Scripture–even the difficult portions–can be understood.

    What does it take to understand Scripture?

    Whether we like it or not, and without meaning any offense to anyone, the Bible does declare that it cannot be understood by the “natural man” (1 Corinthians 2:14). In plain English, the Bible thus tells us that there are spiritual requirements that must be met in order to understand it. That spiritual requirement is that a person must be saved in the here and now by fully trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for salvation by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8).

    But that does not mean that just because one is truly saved that they understand the Scriptures on every point accurately. Some make the flagrant error of claiming to be taught by the Holy Spirit, and conclude that what they believe must therefore be correct.

    But the Holy Spirit does not put a premium on laziness or ignorance. God expects us to continue to “search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so” (Acts 17:11). God expects us to do our homework, and to continue to do our homework. And I am sure that the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.

    The Roman Catholics take great delight in criticizing Protestants and non-Catholics because of the very evident division of opinion among non-Catholics. Of course, some Catholics will not admit that they have any diversity of opinion or interpretation amongst themselves. They long ago figured out how to solve this problem: the Pope, who is now declared infallible when speaking officially of matters of faith and doctrine has the only absolutely true and correct view. The trouble is, papal pronouncements as to the specific meaning of individual Bible verses appear to be relatively rare, so we can’t look to that source for any significant help.

    So we are left with a Divine Revelation recorded in words which are inspired in our Bible.

    To understand it we must read it and study it. We must compare Scripture with Scripture to learn its truth about individual topics, subjects, and doctrines, since what the Bible says about all these things is not presented systematically in one place.

    The check upon our correctness and accuracy is the Law of Non-contradiction.

    When we are mistaken, our position will contradict another line of Scripture teaching, such that what we mistakenly hold to be so “will not fit” and cannot be reconciled without asserting a contradiction (but many times apparent contradictions are not contradictions, upon further careful study). The Bible in this sense is a self-correcting body of truth, for if we should happen to be mistaken, when we learn other clear truth from Scripture as we study it further, that newly learned and understood truth will serve to correct our previous misunderstanding.

    Once a person has studied the Scriptures sufficiently, independently and thoroughly throughout the Bible, most issues of the doctrines of Scripture will be pretty much settled, and will not be subject to further correction.

    Hindrances to understanding the Bible would include, for some readers, especially new first-time readers of the Bible, the matter of not yet being saved. Once a person has read the New Testament carefully enough, especially the Gospel of John which itself states it was written for this purpose, this problem can be overcome.

    Another most serious and very difficult problem to overcome is reflected by the expression “poisoning the well.” Our previous learning from sources that themselves are in error can make it very, very difficult to read the Bible without importing these misconceptions into the text as we read.

    Some contemporary scholars have changed their mind about the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, partly for this reason. Clark Pinnock is one such theologian I’ve read by way of an article posted on the Internet who says he has come to the opinion that we can no longer claim that the Bible is understandable to the common reader. I disagree with him on that point. To accept Pinnock’s assertion as true, I would have to say that the Psalmist in Psalm 119 and Jesus in Matthew 24:15 are mistaken, and that cannot be true.

    But it is true that once a person has been taught Adventist heresy, like the doctrine of Annihilation, or has been taught Jehovah Witness heresy, namely Arianism and its denial of the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, it is very hard to undo such basic ingrained error. Jehovah Witnesses can be brought up short by having them carefully consider the cross references furnished for Isaiah 55:3, or having them read a scholarly work on Bible prophecy which demonstrates their understanding of what they thought they knew about God’s Kingdom to be in error.

    Those inadvertently caught up in the meshes of Calvinistic doctrinal heresy are likewise very difficult, usually, to extract from such error. But it is error, and no amount of pleading “once saved, always saved” can erase John 10:27 from the proper consideration of the actual teaching of John 10:28.

    Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
    Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

    But correction of false doctrine is not impossible. Probably every system of doctrinal error has a point which absolutely and undeniably contradicts a specific truth taught by the Bible.

    For example, those who unfortunately and mistakenly believe in Annihilation likely have no valid possible answer to the logic and careful syntax used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:18! Though I suppose, like always in these matters, they suppose they do.

    1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
    1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
    1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
    1Co 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
    1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
    1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
    1Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
    1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

    The logic of Paul’s argument requires that we understand his statement, “Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished,” to be untrue, which means Paul states that the dead in Christ are not perished, for they are very much alive, as Jesus taught when He said of those who have experienced physical death like Abraham and nearly everyone else (Enoch and Elijah being the exceptions for they never died physically but were directly translated to heaven), “for all live unto him” (Luke 20:38).

    That is, Paul is arguing to make the point that those who have died in Christ are not perished. “Perished” is G622, apollumi, a Greek word we have discussed before, which never means to annihilate.

    Yes, I know. You remain unconvinced. It might be you cannot be convinced of this truth because you have been drawing your supposed “truth” from poisoned wells of mistaken resources, rather than directly from the Bible itself.

    But I have a serious question to present you on another topic altogether. You were able to list a number of Futurist authors you claim were influenced by the Roman Catholic Jesuit writer Ribera. My question is, what are the best authors you have found that present the case for your view, Historicist?

    It would be helpful to me in my ongoing studies of these issues if you would be able to name them.

  28. A. Way says:

    See Jerry – that is the point. I understand scripture differently. I do not see your futurism, as much as you claim it is so obvious, I don’t see it. Your interpretation of prophesy, I do not see it. Your claim of a eternal conscious torment, I don’t see it. In fact, it is absolutely abhorrent. You have “fear” of God, and I do not. The wicked do die, and it is awful. But it is not God doing it, it is God allowing the natural consequences of sin to go to completion. So yes, we are far apart. And it is based on the same scriptures.

    Quote:”It might be you cannot be convinced of this truth because you have been drawing your supposed “truth” from poisoned wells of mistaken resources, rather than directly from the Bible itself.” I have reviewed all that I believe from the Bible. The Bible fits. You accuse me of not being open. You also do not appear to be open. Is there any point of continuing? Have you never heard of what the reformers said about the church and who was the anti-christ? Have you never heard of Ribera? You read more by accident in on day that I will ever read in a lifetime. How can you not have heard of these things?

  29. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I most certainly have heard of such things. You are correct in observing that I read more in one day than most people do, and more widely.

    But I asked for your help in providing the most significant sources you have read that have established in your mind the truth of Historicism.

    I know you are likely quite busy, and appreciate your challenging and helpful responses here.

    You were able readily to furnish a list of Futurists you believe are dependent upon Ribera, which I totally disagree with, and proved by a careful reference to Peters, one of the greatest prophetic scholars in America in the nineteenth century, who in his vast indexes, does not even mention him!

    Now, kindly help me with a significant short list of titles or authors that are the best in the support of Historicism. I surely gave you what you requested, and mentioned both Peters and Dwight Pentecost as the best sources for Futurism I have found.

    Eagerly awaiting your answer!

  30. A. Way says:

    Have you read anything of Ribera? Have you compared his work with the protestants of the 19th century? Do you agree, that until the 19th century, that Historicism was the predominate thought?

    You have already stated that you total disagree with Historicism. What are the chances that any book I put forward would be greeted with an open mind? By your statements, zero. In fact, with your vast reading experience, you should be telling me that best sources of Historicism and why they are invalid.

  31. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    When someone like myself, or anyone else, asks a simple question of or for information, a civil person interested in the truth would be glad to be helpful and furnish the information requested.

    So far, you have not been helpful to provide the information requested, yet. I hope you will.

  32. A. Way says:

    We argue civility now? LOL. After saying repeatedly that I do not understand Bible prophesy? That I do not engage in “real” Bible study? That I an locked into denominational dogma? You say you have presented clear evidence on several topics and because I do not see it, you think I am what, blind and can’t see?

    I will give you a couple of the books that I’ve read recently. The one that first made me aware of the Jesuit connection to futurism and preterism is “Truth Matters” by Walter Veith, PhD. I first became aware of this man’s work with respect to nutrition and physiology. He was former Catholic turned atheist, and was also heavy into the occult, particularly his wife’s family. He draws on his access to occult writings to address the issues of the Bible and Bible prophesy, which includes the identity of the anti-christ, and preterism and futurism. I think you have said you have heard of this man, and have rejected him. I present this for few others that might be reading this blog.

    Veith is one who pointed to me the connection of the Catholic church and counter-reformation ideas of preterism and futurism. For the historical view, the book is “The Great Controversy” by Ellen White. This is the 5th book in a series, the first being “Patriarchs and Prophets” speaking on the first part of the OT. The second part of the OT being covered by the book, “Prophets and Kings”. Next is the book, “The Desire of Ages” on the life of Christ. “Acts of the Apostles” is the fourth. Taking history from Christ’ day to the present is “The Great Controversy”. These 5 books cover earth history in light of the Bible. Two other books, “Thought from the Mount of Blessings” and “Christ’ Object Lessons”, compliment “The Desire of Ages”. These books come with extensive Biblical references.

    Just in the last few weeks, I have found some interesting statistics on Ellen White. She is the most translated, most widely published woman of all time. One volume, “Steps to Christ” has over 100 millions copies, over 150 languages. This was one of the first book of White’s that I studied very closely. It is a short book that can be read in just a few hours by a mortal like me. Jerry, 10 minutes. 🙂 The George Barna Group survey of the books and authors most influential to pastors included this paragraph: “The under-40 pastors championed several authors who were not ranked highly by older church leaders. Those authors included business consultant James Collins, seminary professor Thom Rainer, nineteenth century Seventh-Day Adventist icon Ellen White, and pastor John Ortberg.” Radio personality and syndicated columnist Paul Harvey, in his noontime ABC radiobroadcast of September 27, 1997, reported regarding Ellen White: “Her writings have been translated into 148 languages. More than Marx or Tolstoi, more than Agatha Cristhie, more than William Shakespeare. Only now is the world coming to appreciate her recommended prescription for optimum spiritual and physical health. “Ellen White! You don’t know her? Get to know her.”

    Of course, none of this proves anything. One has to compare everything with scripture. This I have done with a number of topics you believe in, and I find alternate interpretations that fit scripture better that the popular beliefs. Scripture is the final authority. In the book “The Great Controversy”, there is a chapter titled, “The Scriptures a Safeguard”. I few quotes from this chapter: ” It is the first and highest duty of every rational being to learn from the Scriptures what is truth, and then to walk in the light and encourage others to follow his example. We should day by day study the Bible diligently, weighing every thought and comparing scripture with scripture. With divine help we are to form our opinions for ourselves as we are to answer for ourselves before God.” “We should exert all the powers of the mind in the study of the Scriptures and should task the understanding to comprehend, as far as mortals can, the deep things of God; yet we must not forget that the docility and submission of a child is the true spirit of the learner.” ” Notwithstanding the Bible is full of warnings against false teachers, many are ready thus to commit the keeping of their souls to the clergy. There are today thousands of professors of religion who can give no other reason for points of faith which they hold than that they were so instructed by their religious leaders. They pass by the Saviour’s teachings almost unnoticed, and place implicit confidence in the words of the ministers. But are ministers infallible? How can we trust our souls to their guidance unless we know from God’s word that they are light bearers? A lack of moral courage to step aside from the beaten track of the world leads many to follow in the steps of learned men; and by their reluctance to investigate for themselves, they are becoming hopelessly fastened in the chains of error.

  33. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    At last, you answered my question and furnished titles and authors of a few works that have been instrumental in persuading you of the truth of the historicist position. Thank you very much for doing so.

    I especially appreciate your comment,

    One has to compare everything with scripture. This I have done with a number of topics you believe in, and I find alternate interpretations that fit scripture better that the popular beliefs. Scripture is the final authority.

    I do not at all concur with your judgment, however, that the alternate interpretations you have found fit Scripture better than the views I have provided here on this site.

    You must admit, based on the evidence I have published, and based on the comments I have written here, that I may have done more extensive study of the Bible than you have. At least you said so in your first post or two here. I think my judgment as to the truth or untruth of an alleged Bible doctrine ought to count for something among those who believe the Bible is the final authority, the verbally inspired written Word of God.

    I would especially challenge you to rethink your position regarding the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenants in Scripture. The Bible writers make specific reference to these two covenants over and over again. In the New Testament, the very first sentence in the Book of Matthew makes reference to both:

    Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

    In the last chapter of the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, there is also an allusion to the Davidic Covenant:

    Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

    The sworn provisions of those two Covenants are held inviolate by God himself.

    How do I know? I did not learn it from Francisco Ribera, you may be most sure. I learned it by carefully reading from a plain text Bible and noting, in a list, the provisions I saw as I read the text of the chapters where these Covenants are given.

    Anyone else with a plain text Bible on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island could surely do the same.

    My present list was made on March 8, 2010, and the included cross references represent those references as they were found to that time, and probably conform quite closely to the existing references in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. I continue to add cross references to these provisions as I spot further mentions of them in the Bible in my ongoing work on expanding the cross references available for Real Bible Study.

    I found 25 provisions so far specified in the Abrahamic Covenant, of which the following are a sampling:

    (1) Great nation to come from Abraham, Ge 12:2;

    I will. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (1), Great nation to come from Abraham. Ge 13:16. 15:5. 17:5, 6. 18:18. *22:17, 18. 24:35. 26:4. 27:29. 28:3, 14. 32:12. 35:11. 46:3. 47:27. Ex 1:7. 32:10. Nu 14:12. 24:9, 10. Dt 26:5. 2 S 7:9. 1 K 3:8, 9. Mi *7:20. Ro *4:11. Ga 3:7. make of thee. Ex 6:4-8. a great nation. Is 51:2. Ezk 33:24.

    (2) Abraham himself to be blessed, Ge 12:2;

    I will bless thee. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (2), Abraham himself to be blessed. Dt 9:5. Is 19:24, 25. Hg 2:19. Ep 1:3.

    (3) Abraham’s name to be great, Ge 12:2;

    name great. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (3), Abraham’s name to be great. Ge 2:19, 20. 11:4. *17:5. 32:28. Nu 6:27. 1 Ch 17:8, 21. Ps 52:9. Da 1:7. Mt *1:21. Ac *4:12. Ph *2:10.

    (4) Abraham shall be a blessing, Ge 12:2;

    thou shalt be a blessing. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (4), Abraham shall be a blessing. Ge 14:14-16. 18:18. 19:29. 28:4. 1 K 1:47. Je 4:2. Zc 8:13. Jn 7:38. Ga 3:14. He 6:14.

    (5) Those who bless Abraham shall be blessed, Ge 12:3;

    bless them. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (5), Those who bless Abraham shall be blessed. Ge +18:18. 27:29. Nu 24:9. Ps +*122:6. Mt 25:40, 45. thee. FS121A5, Ge +9:27.

    (6) Those who curse Abraham shall be cursed, Ge 12:3;

    curse him. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (6), Those who curse Abraham shall be cursed. Ex +**23:22mg. Nu 23:8. Dt +*30:7. Je 30:16. Am 9:15. Zc 12:3, 9.

    (7) All families of the earth shall be blessed in Abraham, Ge 12:3;

    in thee. Abrahamic Covenant provision (7), All families of the earth shall be blessed in Abraham. Ge 18:18. +22:18. 26:3, 4. 28:14. 30:27, 30. 39:5. Ps 72:11, 17. Zc 8:23. Mt 1:1. Lk 1:55, 73. Ac *3:25, 26. Ro 4:11, 13. 1 C 1:30. Ga *3:>8, 14, 16, 28. Ep 1:3. Col 3:11. He 6:12, 17. Re 7:9.

    (8) The land of Canaan given to Abraham’s seed, Ge 12:7;

    Unto thy seed. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (8), The land of Canaan given to Abraham’s seed. Ge 13:15. *15:18. *17:3, 8. 21:12. *26:3. *28:13. Ex 33:1. Nu 32:11. Dt 1:8. 6:10. 30:20. Ps 105:9-12. Ac >7:5. Ro 9:7, 8. Ga *3:16. give this land. Ge 15:7. Dt 34:4. builded. ver. 8. Ge 8:20. 13:4, 18. 22:9. 26:25. 33:20. He 11:13.

    (9) Abraham personally and his seed are to inherit the land as promised, the land of Canaan or Palestine, Ge 13:15;

    to thee. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (9), Abraham personally and his seed are to inherit the land as promised, the land of Canaan or Palestine (Ge 12:2n). ver. 17. Ge 12:7. 15:7, 8, 18. *17:7, 8. 18:18. 24:7. 26:3, 4. 28:4, 13. 35:12. 48:4. Ex *3:6. 6:4. Nu 34:2, 12. Dt 11:21. 26:2-4. 34:4. 2 Ch 20:7. Ne 9:7, 8. Ps 37:*22, 29. 105:9-12. 112:1, 2. Is 63:18. Mt +*5:5. *8:11. **22:23-32. Lk 13:28. Ac 1:6. +**7:5n. Ro +*15:8. He +*11:13, 39. thy seed. Ml +**3:6. Ga >3:16.

    (10) The land of Canaan given to Abraham and his seed forever, Ge 13:15;

    for ever. Heb. olam, Ex +12:24; Ge +8:22; +9:12, +16. Abrahamic Covenant provision (10), The land of Canaan given to Abraham and his seed forever. Ge *17:8. Is +11:11n. Je 31:36. 33:25, 26. Ezk 36:24. Am +9:14, 15. Lk 1:32, 33, *55. Ro +*11:1.

    (17) The Abrahamic Covenant declared an everlasting or perpetual covenant, Ge 17:7;

    everlasting. Abrahamic Covenant provision (17), The Abrahamic Covenant declared an everlasting or perpetual covenant (Ge 12:2n). ver. 13, 19. Ge +9:12, 16. Jg 2:1. Ps 105:9, 10. 111:5. Is 44:7mg. He *13:20. 1 P *1:20. Heb. olam, +S#5769h: Ge 9:16. 17:7, 8, 13, 19. *21:33. 48:4. 49:26. Ex 40:15. Le 16:34. 24:8. Nu 25:13. Dt 33:27. 2 S 23:5. 1 Ch 16:17. Ps 24:7, 9n. 93:2. 100:5. 105:10. 112:6. 119:142, 144. 139:24. Pr 8:23. 10:25. Is 24:5. *33:14. 35:10. *40:28. 51:11. 54:8. 55:3, 13. 56:5. 60:19, 20. 61:7, 8. 63:12, 16. Je 10:10. 20:11. 23:40. 31:3. 32:40. Ezk 16:60. 37:26. Da 4:3, 34. 7:14, 27. 12:2, 2. Mi *5:2. Hab 3:6. For passages where olam is rendered for ever, see Ex +12:24. See related note (Jn +*6:54n).

    (18) God to be Abraham’s God, Ge 17:7;

    to be a God. Abrahamic Covenant provision (18), God to be Abraham’s God (Ge 12:2n). Ge 24:12. *26:24. *28:13. 31:42. 32:9. Ex 3:6, 15. 20:2. 29:45. Le 11:45. 26:12, 45. Ps 47:9. 81:10. Je *24:7. 30:22. *31:33. Ezk 11:20. 28:26. Zc +*13:9. Mt 22:32. Jn +20:17. 2 C *6:16. He 8:10. *11:16. Re 21:3, 7.

    (19) All the land of Canaan to be an “everlasting possession,” Ge 17:8;

    everlasting. Heb. olam, ver. +*7; Ge +*8:22; +9:12, +16; +*13:15; Ex +12:24. possession. Abrahamic Covenant provision (19), All the land of Canaan to be an “everlasting possession” (Ge 12:2n). Ge 12:7. 13:15. 15:18. 48:4. Ex 21:6. 31:16, 17. 40:15. Le 16:34. Nu 25:13. Dt 32:8. Jg 2:1. 2 S +*23:5. Ps 103:17.111:5. Is +11:11n. 44:7mg. Je **31:36, 37. **33:25, 26. Ezk 36:24. Am +9:14, 15. Lk 1:32, 33. Ro +11:1. He 9:15. 1 P *1:4, 20. 2 P *1:11.

    (20) God to be a God to Abraham’s seed as “their God,” Ge +**17:8;

    their God. Abrahamic Covenant provision (20), God to be a God to Abraham’s seed as “their God” (Ge 12:2n). ver. +*7. Ex 6:7. Le **26:12. Dt 4:37. *14:2. *26:18. *29:13. Je 31:32, 33. Ezk 36:28. Ho 8:2. Jl 2:17. Zc 13:9. Ac 3:19-21. He 8:10.

    A study of these provisions and the associated Scripture references will demonstrate, with a finality that no added words of mine can enhance, that the Abrahamic Covenant is still in force and has not been changed or diminished or transferred to someone else. The Covenant Provisions that pertain to Abraham’s physical seed are still in force as promised to Abraham himself and his literal physical descendants, to whom these promises are given by an everlasting covenant. The existence of the literal nation of Israel (preserved to this day by stupendous miracle) demonstrates that God keeps His Covenant promises without fail! It also demonstrates that God is not finished yet!

    Je **31:35, 36

    Jer 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
    Jer 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

    Je **33:25, 26

    Jer 33:25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
    Jer 33:26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

    Do we still have day and night in their season?

    Until we don’t, God’s Covenant to Abraham and his natural seed still stands!

    Your view, which (as I understand you) appears to hold otherwise, clearly is in direct contradiction to what the Bible itself plainly declares.

    You cannot attribute the plain meaning of these promises to some flaw in my alleged Futurist Glasses!

  34. A. Way says:

    You said”Until we don’t, God’s Covenant to Abraham and his natural seed still stands!
    Your view, which (as I understand you) appears to hold otherwise, clearly is in direct contradiction to what the Bible itself plainly declares.”

    Read John 8. Did the true seed follow God? Some did! The Christian faith was not to be new faith, but a continuation of the real faith that the Jews were supposed to have, and most did not. Only those in Christ are true heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:29 AKJV And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Romans 2:28-29 AKJV For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. 1 Corinthians 7:19 AKJV Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Galatians 6:15 AKJV2 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

    There is nothing magical about being a Jew. True heredity is only found in Christ, in the new birth. Only those in Christ are the true heirs. The idea is, what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. God does not evaluate a man’s religion by his compliance with ritual observances, but by his relationship to the principles of the divine law (Ecclesiastes 12:13; John 14:15, 21, 23; John 15:10; 1 John 2:4-6). A man can keep the commandments whether or not he is circumcised. Sin is transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4. Through rebirth, we again can keep the law. We do this because of God, we do not do this in order to be saved. I agree, scripture IS very clear.

  35. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I trust and pray that the Lord and His Holy Spirit will allow your eyes and heart to be open to what is plain Bible truth.

    Your comment is beside the point and avoids the issue the texts of Scripture I brought forth declare.

    The literal nation of Israel, of the natural seed of Abraham, has not been permanently cast away by God (Leviticus 26:44). Israel by divine covenant will inherit the Land promised to Abraham and his seed forever (Ezekiel 36:24. Amos 9:11-15, especially verse 15).

    For you, day and night have apparently ceased to alternate in their season, and you are still in the dark.

    Since the Messiah has come, the only Jewish people of the natural seed of Abraham that will or can be saved and see the kingdom of God are those who place their faith in the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ. In this Church Age or Age of Grace such distinctions as Jew and Gentile have no bearing upon our status with God. The whole body, counted as one body, whether Jew or Gentile, in Christ, constitute “Spiritual Israel,” the one true Church, which is His body (Ephesians 5:23, 30).

    But this does not negate the fact that God has called out one nation unto Himself (Amos 3:2), the Jewish nation, to whom historically He has made inviolable and irrevocable promises called Covenants, the two most central of which are the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenants. The provisions of those two Covenants have not yet been fulfilled, but they will be, exactly as written. Therefore it is necessary to conclude that God is not finished yet. Paul declares, citing Old Testament Scripture, that “And so all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26, citing Isaiah 59:20, 21). Paul clearly has reference to the literal nation of Israel, to an event that is yet future, which will by a miracle of Grace result in all Israel being saved and their sins totally removed upon their seeing face to face their Redeemer, their Messiah, when He comes to Zion (see also Zechariah 12:10).

    We today are saved on the basis of provisions promised in the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenants, particularly the Abrahamic, as a careful reading of Romans chapter 4 would surely make clear to any careful reader.

    We are NOT saved on the basis of our adherence to or conformity with Law, but we are saved by grace through faith, just as Abraham was (Genesis 15:6), totally apart from any possible works of the Law.

    But what counted then counts now. As early as Deuteronomy 10:16 & 30:6 God spoke of the “circumcision of the heart,” which surely is something totally different from physical circumcision, and represents having a heart-relationship with God based upon faith in His promise of salvation. Salvation, therefore, has always been by faith prior to and apart from any works.

    In this dispensation, we who know Christ are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9, 11), who has regenerated us (Titus 3:5), made us new creatures or a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), totally independent of any reference to Law. If ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law (Galatians 5:18). Any law. Rather, the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22, 23) in our life as we stay connected, as it were, to the vine, which is Christ (John 15:1-6), by continuing to grow in Grace (2 Peter 3:18) as we continue to feed on His Word written in the Bible (Jeremiah 15:16; Job 23:12; 1 Peter 1:23 & 2:2).

    I recommend you study carefully the book of Galatians and learn well and believe the message of grace apart from any connection to Law that is taught therein.

    You have rightly and repeatedly said that we are not saved by obedience to the Law. Now you need to learn and experience further that we are saved by being “in Christ.”

    But you have also repeatedly and wrongly said that those who are saved by grace alone without regard to law are therefore free to kill and break all the other commandments, which is straw-man nonsense as you well know. A person who is truly saved, who is “in Christ,” obeys the commands of Christ by nature because the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit in the believer’s life.

    That you have not made “the fruit of the Spirit” your emphasis, and our being “in Christ” your emphasis, and our “growing in grace” your emphasis, shows your system of belief is not properly in line with the Gospel, but is to that degree “another Gospel,” which as Paul warned, is not another (Galatians 1:6-9), but is totally flawed, and any belief in such “another Gospel” makes “Christ of none effect to you” (Galatians 5:4 with Galatians 2:21).

    “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law” (Galatians 5:18).

  36. A. Way says:

    Quote: “But you have also repeatedly and wrongly said that those who are saved by grace alone without regard to law are therefore free to kill and break all the other commandments, which is straw-man nonsense as you well know. A person who is truly saved, who is “in Christ,” obeys the commands of Christ by nature because the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit in the believer’s life.”

    No, I have not said that. You have said we do not need to keep the law. I have said that we are not saved by keeping the law under our own power. I have said, and a truly converted person will do what the law required because it will be written on the heart. The problem you have when looking at the 10 commandments, is that it is only 9, you leave out the 4th. You do not believe that it is part of the law. You have said because it is not explicitly stated in the NT. Yet Jesus kept all 10 commandments. Jesus is my example. I’ve quoted Revelation 11:19, where the Ark of the Covenant is visible in Heaven. What was in the Ark? The tablets of STONE, showing permanence, the 10 Commandments, all 10, not 9. Also Manna. When did Manna fall? 6 days a week, but none on Sabbath. Manna is a type. Also Arron’s rod that budded. You call that a stretch to say this represents the 10C in the NT. I call it fact. You say, this only applies to genetic Israel. I read the Bible and if you are Christ’s, then you ARE Abraham’s seed according to the promise. And presto, ALL of Revelation applies to you. Who is ignoring the straight facts of the Bible? The futurism view gets you off the hook.

    A couple of messages ago, you appealed to the fact that you have studied the Bible more that me. It is written, Psalms 118:8 NRSV It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to put confidence in mortals. Psalms 146:3-4 NRSV Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. 4 When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish. Jeremiah 17:5-9 NRSV Thus says the LORD: Cursed are those who trust in mere mortals and make mere flesh their strength, whose hearts turn away from the LORD. 6 They shall be like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see when relief comes. They shall live in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land. 7 Blessed are those who trust in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD. 8 They shall be like a tree planted by water, sending out its roots by the stream. It shall not fear when heat comes, and its leaves shall stay green; in the year of drought it is not anxious, and it does not cease to bear fruit. 9 The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse–who can understand it?

    You see, you appeal to the fact that you have spent more time studying, is not relevant, if the Word of God, as I read it in Bible, contradicts your interpretation. Saul was a Pharisee of Pharisees. He studied under Gamaliel, a doctor of the law (Acts 5:34; Acts 22:3). Was Saul correct in his interpretation of the scriptures? NO! He had to be shaken from his position directly by Jesus. It shook Saul to the core. His interpretation was wrong. So, yes, I will listen to what you say, but will test it by the scriptures. And I find the historical interpretation convincing, and the futurism view unconvincing.

    Quote: “For you, day and night have apparently ceased to alternate in their season, and you are still in the dark.” Who has scales on their eyes? Futurism has invaded Christendom!

  37. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I have presented clear Scripture in support of my view. The Scripture I have cited totally contradicts your view.

    Does Scripture contradict Scripture?

    I am sure you and I both agree that Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

    The Scripture says:

    Lev 26:44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.
    Lev 26:45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.

    God clearly promised the nation of Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham:

    (1) I will not cast them away

    (2) I will not destroy them utterly

    (3) I will not break my covenant with them

    (4) I will remember the land: Leviticus 26:42, my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

    (5) I will remember my covenant with Abraham

    These five points are derived directly from the Scripture as stated in Leviticus chapter 26. These points are not my opinion. They are not my interpretation. They have nothing to do with Futurism. These statements are simply the direct declaration of the written Word of God.

    The Scripture says:

    Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.
    Isa 41:9 Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.
    Isa 41:10 Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.
    Isa 41:11 Behold, all they that were incensed against thee shall be ashamed and confounded: they shall be as nothing; and they that strive with thee shall perish.

    God declares:

    (1) He has chosen Israel, has chosen Jacob, the seed of Abraham my friend

    (2) I have chosen thee

    (3) I have not cast thee away

    (4) “for I am thy God”

    Note that it is not a matter of interpretation, but it is the direct declaration in both passages that God has not cast away Israel. The basis for appeal that God makes is “for I am thy God,” which is a direct reference to one of the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, to which the context clearly refers:

    Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    God declares:

    (1) He would give to Abraham himself, and to his seed after him, all the land of Canaan

    (2) The land of Canaan is given to Abraham and his seed as an everlasting possession

    (3) and He will be their God

    The Scripture says:

    Jer 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
    Jer 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

    God declares:

    (1) He has given the ordinances of the movements of the universe

    (2) If those ordinances cease their regular function, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Him forever

    God thus asserts the stability of the universe as a guarantee of the certainty that the nation of Israel will continue as a nation before Him forever.

    The Scripture says:

    Jer 33:23 Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying,
    Jer 33:24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
    Jer 33:25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
    Jer 33:26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

    God declares:

    (1) There are some who despise His people

    (2) These despisers of his people have declared God has cast off His people Israel

    (3) These despisers of his chosen people have declared that they should no more be a nation before Him

    (4) God states these despisers and their assertions are absolutely wrong, affirming that so long as day and night remain in their succession, God will not cast way the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor the seed of David his servant.

    God thus directly affirmed the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenant to be inviolable as plainly as language can make it.

    Now, Mr. A. Way, are you on the side of the “despisers of my people Israel” God is faulting, or do you now agree that since day and night continue in their season, God has not cast away his people the nation of Israel, they continue as a nation before him, and he will yet fulfill those two Covenants to the letter and have mercy upon them?

  38. A. Way says:

    Who despises who?

    Is this not clear?
    Galatians 3:29 ESV And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

    John 8:37-44 KJV I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    If God was your father? If Abraham were your father? He just told them he knew they were Abraham’s seed… The real seed of Abraham are those that are in Christ.

    I guess we will need to agree to disagree.

  39. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Your assessment that we will just have to agree to disagree is correct.

    I do not intend to make the interpretive mistake that you and many who would side with you make: one of the rules of interpretation on my list of 23 Rules of Interpretation cautions against failing to distinguish things that differ though they have similar sounding names. This is Rule 18 on my list in the October 2010 Archives.

    Spiritual Israel differs from natural Israel. The existence of Spiritual Israel does not remove the existence of natural Israel: if it did, God would be unfaithful to His sworn Covenants to David and Abraham, which of course on the part of God is impossible.

    Therefore, it is impossible for your position to be correct.

    The fact that there are unbelievers among the physical seed of Abraham in the day of Jesus (hence your appeal to John 8 ) and today does not negate the Covenants God made to Abraham and David. A good portion of the Book of Hebrews is premised on this fact in its careful exposition of Psalm 95.

    You cited a very significant text:

    Galatians 3:29 ESV And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

    Paul tells us that if we truly believe in Christ, and thus are Christ’s, we are Abraham’s offspring, because we are heirs according to promise. And where is that promise? In the Abrahamic Covenant.

    Paul said in this very same connection, citing the ESV,

    Rom 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
    Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
    Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
    Rom 11:27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”
    Rom 11:28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
    Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

    Paul is telling us plainly that we have been grafted in to the olive tree in accordance with the grace and provision for the Gentiles to likewise be saved, but this does not take away the covenant God made with Israel, for they though now enemies of the Gospel for our sake (so that we too, according to promise, can be saved), they are still beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

    Paul was most aware of the very Scriptures I have cited for you, as is evident when Paul asserts unequivocally that God has not cast away Israel. Paul tells us that God’s Covenants with Israel are irrevocable.

    That being the case, my position must be correct, and your position must be wrong.

    I am going to have to study more on what the Scripture teaches about those spoken of in Jeremiah as “despisers of Israel.” It would appear from what God both said and did about that matter in Jeremiah’s time and for some years after that God takes the matter far more seriously than most of us do today. It may tie in to the Abrahamic Covenant’s provision that God will bless those who bless Abraham (and of course his seed, his natural offspring, and so this includes natural Israel), and promises to curse those who curse Israel. To deny natural Israel its right to the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant would appear not to be blessing them, but cursing them, and if this should be so, those who do so are in a heap of trouble.

    Recall that God promises to bless those who pray for the peace of Jerusalem, which as Israel’s rightful and proper capital, surely stands for the whole nation, by a common figure of speech called Metonymy (see Psalm 122:6).

    Psa 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

  40. A. Way says:

    Yes, we are grafted in. Grafted into whom or what? Abraham? NO. Christ. John 15:5 AKJV I am the vine, you are the branches: He that stays in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. Christ it he vine. Christ is the corner stone. Christ is the rock. Christ is the center of all things. Do read Romans 11, all of it. Romans 11:17 KJV “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;” Jeremiah represented Israel as an olive tree Jeremiah 11:16. “were broken off” references the unbelieving Jews, who, in rejecting Christ, sealed not only their own fate but also that of the nation. The kingdom of God was taken away from them and “given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”, Matthew 21:43. The Gentile Christians became sharers of God’s eternal plan of salvation, Ephesians 3:6.

    Change subject – why does futurism ignore 2000 years of history? The prophesies of Daniel explain the dark ages, and the time to come. Futurism ignores 2000 years. Ignores the travesty that the “Christian” church brought upon the people, killing many millions. Futurism was a concoction of the counter reformation. Ribera’s main point was the 70th week of Daniel’s prophesy was in the future. Bingo! Jerry’s “unannounced” break in the timeline.

    So who had the correct theology? Those who were burned at the stake for Jesus Christ or those who lit the fires? Who had the true Bible doctrine? The martyrs or their persecutors? Who had the correct interpretation of the Antichrist? Those who died trusting in the blood of Christ, or those who shed the blood of God’s dear saints? Jesuit Futurism is now at war with the Protestant Reformation by denying its power packed application of prophecy to the Vatican.

    The Bible’s prophesies are spot on.

  41. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Perhaps it would help you to see more light if we indeed take a quick look at a different issue, different at least on the surface.

    When I have posted comments in a religious discussion forum frequented by very devout Roman Catholics I am frequently presented with a standard Roman Catholic objection.

    They say, “Jerry, you believe what you do about the Bible because you were taught your belief by Martin Luther, a heretic.”

    I respond, “I own two books written by Martin Luther. One is titled something like The Bondage of the Will. The other is Luther’s commentary on the book of Galatians, or maybe it is the book of Romans, I forget which. But my point is, I did not develop my viewpoint about the Bible from Luther. I read the Bible for myself. Isaiah 8:20 among many other passages teaches we are to go by the Bible alone, not other sources.”

    Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

    Now, dear brother A. Way, are the Roman Catholics correct in their statement that since I am not a Roman Catholic, I must have learned my opinion about the Bible from Martin Luther?

  42. A. Way says:

    quote:”Now, dear brother A. Way, are the Roman Catholics correct in their statement that since I am not a Roman Catholic, I must have learned my opinion about the Bible from Martin Luther?”

    You claim to have learned the Bible in a sterile environment, a deserted Island. And you can not prove this, and I seriously doubt it. You are a product of your environment. We all are. You have locked on to futurism. Futurism is not a product of Jerry. It preexisted Jerry. You have internalized it. It is settled, “in your mind”. You find it incredible that I do not believe you. You even appealed to your more extensive study, yet I’m sure you will agree with scripture that was should not trust any mortal. (Psalms 118:8; Psalms 146:3-4; Jeremiah 17:5-9).

    Luther, and every other reformer agreed that the papacy was the anti-christ. You do not believe this, because that is not what futurism teaches. Futurism was a Jesuit creation, as was preterism, and the blessedness of Mary, and indulgences, and many more doctrines. Yes, futurism and preterism and other catholic doctrines are contrary to each other, it is confusion. Confusion. Babylon – Babal – confusion. God is calling everyone out of confusion. Revelation 18:4. Compare with the call out of Babylon in the OT. Isaiah 48:20; Jeremiah 50:8; 51:6, 45. As God’s people formerly came out of literal Babylon in order that they might return to Jerusalem, so His people today are called out of mystical Babylon in order that they may be accounted worthy to enter the New Jerusalem. Presumably, all who are truly His people will hear His voice and heed His call (Matthew 7:21-27; John 10:4-5).

    This call echos this: Revelation 14:8 ESV Another angel, a second, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.”

    What is meant by sexual immorality? The illicit connection between the church and the world, between the church and the state. Who has done this the “best”? We see it in the dark ages. Futurism throws this all the the future and ignores history. Futurism is drinking the wine of Babylon. The illicit connection has happened in the past, the Bible predicted it, and it will happen again. What is the wine? False doctrines. Revelation 14’s 3rd angels message is to come out of Babylon. Here is what the Bible declares that before the coming of the Lord, Satan will work “with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness;” and they that “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved,” will be left to receive “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11. Strong words, true. One feature of those the believe the false doctrines I believe, is that they will impose their beliefs by force, use the force of law to enforce the false doctrines.

    You Jerry, have said, that observing certain aspects of “the law” is “absolutely forbidden”. Would you use ever use the civil power to enforce your beliefs on those that believe differently? “Absolutely forbidden” is strong language indeed. The Bible says, “let everyone be persuaded in their own mind”, Romans 14:5.

  43. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I had just written a most helpful response to your comment, but it was accidentally lost, so after two hours of work, I guess I must start again.

    I have not responded to your post until now because I was devoting my undivided attention to completing the book of Ezekiel before out of town company was scheduled to arrive.

    You ask a most interesting question:

    Would you use ever use the civil power to enforce your beliefs on those that believe differently?

    My answer is, Absolutely not.

    I believe in absolute religious freedom. People are free to believe what they wish. I wish, however, that others like those from Islam would believe in reciprocity. When Moslems come here, they are allowed to practice their faith. But if Christians similarly went to their country, Christians would not be given there the freedom we give Moslems here. That is not right on their part, and clearly is not fair. Moslem countries particularly frown upon any Moslem that converts to Christianity, but do not similarly frown on any Christian that might convert to Islam.

    You have once again brought up a very important and interesting question:

    You Jerry, have said, that observing certain aspects of “the law” is “absolutely forbidden”.

    You have understood my Biblical claim correctly, and it is time for you to face the
    Biblical evidence, and this time believe it!

    Paul declared that the Galatians were in danger of losing their salvation because they were turning to another gospel, which is not “another.” The Greek word used by Paul is ‘heteros,’ which means “another of a different kind,” hence a false gospel, a gospel which encouraged them to depart from the grace of Christ and turn back to the bondage of the Law, a step Paul said would cost them their salvation. Paul said that those who preach or teach another gospel, or follow another gospel, are under a dreadful curse by God.

    Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
    Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
    Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
    Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

    Paul explains the faith-alone basis of the true Gospel like this:

    Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
    Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
    Gal 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
    Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
    Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
    Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
    Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
    Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
    Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
    Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
    Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
    Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
    Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

    Genuine Bible believing Christians (there are no other kind of genuine Christians) place the Gospel emphasis where both Jesus and Paul did: salvation is not based on obedience to Law, any law, but is based on faith alone.

    Paul argues at length in Romans that saving faith is dependent upon faith alone, in accordance with the promise given by God to Abraham in Genesis 15:6, where Abraham was declared righteous apart from any work of Law, or any obedience. This is the doctrine of the Bible, and those who oppose this doctrine are not genuine Bible believing Christians. Study Romans chapter 4.

    Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

    The Galatians had fallen into serious, soul-destroying error. They had stepped away from the true Gospel of the Grace of God taught them by Paul, and turned toward the yoke of bondage, obedience to Mosaic Law and the Fourth Commandment.

    Here is the charge of heresy Paul accuses them of:

    Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
    Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
    Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

    Paul speaks in Galatians of the terrible truth that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Leaven in the Bible is almost always a type of sin. In this case, the sin of doctrinal heresy, or doctrinal apostasy, leads to loss of eternal life, as Paul plainly states in Galatians 5:4,

    Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
    Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
    Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
    Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
    Gal 5:8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
    Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

    Now, just exactly what was the specific charge Paul brought against the Galatians? It is stated in Galatians 4:10,

    Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

    This is an expression used frequently in the Old Testament to designate in summary form all the days of Jewish observance, including the weekly seventh-day Sabbath, as given in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 and 29. See such passages as 1 Chronicles 23:30, 31. 2 Chronicles 2:4. 8:13. 31:3. Nehemiah 10:33. Ezekiel 45:17.

    1Ch 23:30 And to stand every morning to thank and praise the LORD, and likewise at even;
    1Ch 23:31 And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD:

    2Ch 2:4 Behold, I build an house to the name of the LORD my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our God. This is an ordinance for ever to Israel.

    2Ch 8:13 Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.

    Neh 10:33 For the shewbread, and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make an atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God.

    Eze 45:17 And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

    The Seventh-day Sabbath of the Jews is absolutely forbidden to be observed by Gentile Christians, for it places us under the bondage of Law, and causes us to fall from grace, such that Christ is then of no effect for us. This certainly means loss of salvation. Paul said he was very afraid that if the Galatians had indeed turned in this direction, Paul said his labor was in vain, for they had committed doctrinal apostasy and fallen away from true faith in Christ.

    The emphasis of the true Gospel is not obedience to any Law, Mosaic or otherwise, but is emphatically focused upon being “in Christ” (Romans 8:1, 9, 11), being regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God (Titus 3:5), becoming a new creature, a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), bearing the fruit of the Spirit, walking in the Spirit, and so not being under the Law (Galatians 5:18).

    This truth cannot be understood by the “natural man,” for these things are “spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

    Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
    Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

    Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

    Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

    Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

    2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

    Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

    Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
    Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

    1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    Now to address the issue of Futurism. You have your history of Christian doctrine all mixed up and backwards.

    I define Futurism as the belief in Premillennialism. Premillennialism was NOT the creation of the Roman Catholics. It was NOT the creation of Francisco Ribera.

    The Premillennial faith was taught by our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and is the teaching of the New Testament. It is the teaching of the Old Testament too.

    One of the strongest proofs that the Roman Catholic Church cannot possibly be the One True Church, is that it does not teach the Apostolic Faith taught and revealed in the New Testament. The New Testament teaches the Premillennial faith. The Roman Catholic Church considers the Premillennial faith to be heresy, which nicely demonstrates that Roman Catholicism is full-blown heresy, and is not the Christian faith at all.

    In the history of Christian doctrine, Premillennialism is called Chiliasm, a term derived from a word which means 1000, a reference to Revelation 20:5, and context, where the 1000 years DOES NOT define the length of Christ’s reign, but how long Satan is bound before he is for the final time let loose before his permanent confinement to the Lake of Fire.

    The Bible absolutely teaches that our Lord Jesus Christ will rule upon this earth from Jerusalem upon the Throne of David forever, forever in the infinite sense, as clearly affirmed in Luke 1:32, 33,

    Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
    Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

    All Christian writers of the first three Christian centuries who express an opinion on the subject indicate a belief in the Premillennial faith, and assert all Christians who were correct in their belief did likewise. There is not one Christian writer who criticized the Premillennial faith during the whole of the first three Christian centuries.

    To suggest, as you and/or your misinformed sources have suggested, that Premillennialism originated with the Roman Catholic Jesuit Francisco Ribera, is utter nonsense.

    Therefore, Futurism is the true Biblical faith, Historicism is not.

  44. A. Way says:

    Jerry – could you quote a verse in the Bible that says “Faith alone”? You claim we are saved by “faith alone”. Please, give a scripture verse that says this. The only one I know that uses the phrase, “faith alone” is this one: James 2:24 ESV You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

    Lets see, if we read Hebrews 11, the FAITH chapter, we find some interesting things. Heb 11:4, by faith Abel offered a more acceptable sacrifice… Faith led to doing…
    Heb 11:7, by fatih Noah built an ark… Faith led to doing…
    Heb 11:8, by faith Abraham obeyed and left his home… Faith led to doing….

    Heb 11:24, by fatih Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughters… Faith led to doing…
    Heb 11:25, by faith Moses choose be mistreaded with the people of God that to enjoy the pleasures of sin.. Faith led to doing…
    Heb 11:27, by faith Moses left Egypt. Faith led to doing…
    Heb 11:28, by faith Moses kept the Passover… Faith led to doing…
    Heb 11:31, by faith, the prostitute Rahab befriended the spies… Faith led to doing…
    Do you get the idea? Did their doing save them? No, it was their faith. But if they did not act on their faith, they would not have been justified. So James 2:24 is exactly right, not by “faith alone”…

    Just because the Catholic church denies this or that, does not mean they are behind this or that. The basic tenants of futurism, Ribera did lay out. Accept that. Just because it does exactly match what you think, does not disprove the basic tenants came from him, or other catholic sources. You are convinced in your own mind about futurism. Good for you! I read the Bible and do not. The historical view fits. And it is the most convincing interpretation to me. And amount of your “absolutely teaches” comments does not change what the Bible says. Get use to it.

    Oh – and as for the civil governments, I’m glad you state that the civil government must not use force to enforce beliefs. Yet you agree that the use of force is acceptable. You have stated so before. Just look at the labor union question we talked about before. Labor unions use force in many different ways. Force in that you many times must join them or in other ways support them, or you will not work in many lines of work. And force when there is work action, strikes. This is a form of use of force, coercion to accomplish a goal. So you do agree that the use of force is acceptable and necessary at times. Just trying to be clear.

  45. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    From what you just said, it appears to me that you do not believe that one is saved by faith alone.

    Is one saved by faith or not?

    If one is saved by faith, is one saved before one manifests “works” or only after?

    It looks to me like you may not have reviewed Romans chapter Four lately. Try reading it again.

    True faith in our Lord Jesus Christ results in salvation. True faith in Christ results in a renewal or regenerative change. The Holy Spirit in our lives produces the fruit of the Spirit. But apparently you deny all this.

    As to Futurism, defined as Premillennialism, clearly this is what Jesus taught. This is what the Apostles taught and wrote in the New Testament. It seems to me, as a point in simple logic, that since Francesco Ribera came along well after the first three centuries of this Christian era, he could not possibly be the source of either Futurism or Premillennialism, for the source of the Premillennial view is the literal interpretation of the prophecies in the Bible.

    And as for the issue of labor and unions, apparently you deny what Jesus taught in Luke 10:7. And what the rest of the Bible teaches about justice.

    Apparently you would support what is commonly called “right to work” legislation, and “right to work laws. I guess if you are an administrator, that is the position you would take, especially if you are not a genuine Bible believing Christian.

    “Right to work” laws are designed to remove worker rights to fairness and justice, and leaves the worker with no recourse against arbitrary and unjust actions upon the worker. “Right to work” means right to abuse the worker, the right to force workers to work beyond contractual working hours without additional pay. Most particularly, it removes the right to due process.

    God states in His written Word the Bible that he is very much against those who would so abuse the rights of those who work for them. Of course, the Bible also teaches that workers must work as unto the Lord, not men, and thus Bible believing workers will do good work for their employers, and be “show window material for the Lord Jesus Christ,” by being examples to all of how a worker should perform in a Christ-honoring manner.

    If you have access to a printed copy of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, consult the Topic Number Index on page 1603 for the topic “Business Responsibilities,” and consult the subtopics and associated Scripture references for topic numbers 1821 through 1873. Note particularly the subheading, “Responsibilities to the employee.”

    1846. Give credit when it is due, Proverbs 3:27

    Pro 3:27 Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.

    1847. Set an example. Romans 2:21

    Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

    1848. Be considerate. Ephesians 6:9

    Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

    1849. Be just. Colossians 4:1

    Col 4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

    1850. Honor contracts and agreements. Colossians 4:1

    1851. Pay adequate wages. Jeremiah 22:13

    Jer 22:13 Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work;

    1852. Pay wages on time. Leviticus 19:13

    Lev 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

    1853. Be open to advice, suggestions, criticism. 1 Samuel 25:17

    1Sa 25:17 Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him.

    1854. Provide safe working conditions. Proverbs 12:10

    Pro 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

    1855. Be willing to change and improve procedures when past or present practices fail to solve the problem. Acts 6:3

    Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

    1856. Exercise diligence. Romans 12:8

    Rom 12:8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

    At each of these referenced passages I have given more cross references related to the topic indicated. This would make for an excellent series of Bible studies for personal or group use. God places very high priority on these matters, such as the inviolability of contracts (see Topic 1850 associated with Colossians 4:1, above), emphasized additionally in the Old Testament at Psalm 15:4,

    Psa 15:4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

    Cross references given for Psalm 15:4 lead to passages like Joshua 9:19,

    Jos 9:19 But all the princes said unto all the congregation, We have sworn unto them by the LORD God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them.
    Jos 9:20 This we will do to them; we will even let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we sware unto them.

    2Ch 36:13 And he also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God: but he stiffened his neck, and hardened his heart from turning unto the LORD God of Israel.

    Jer 52:2 And he did that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD, according to all that Jehoiakim had done.
    Jer 52:3 For through the anger of the LORD it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, till he had cast them out from his presence, that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon.

    Eze 17:18 Seeing he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, when, lo, he had given his hand, and hath done all these things, he shall not escape.

    From these passages we may well learn that God insists we live up to agreements and contracts we make. When the nation of Israel violated the agreement with Nebuchadnezzar, God used Nebuchadnezzar to remove them from their land as their just punishment for violating His written Word.

    Notice that the Governor of Wisconsin and other political leaders in our day are passing laws to contravene contracts arrived at in good faith by means of collective bargaining to assure and secure due process rights for teachers, for example. I wrote an article here in depth exploring these issues as a matter of what the Bible teaches about justice.

    In this connection consider Malachi 3:5,

    Mal 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.

    Here is another passage to consider:

    2Ch 19:2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.

  46. A. Way says:

    You have side stepped the issue very nicely Jerry. The question is the use of force. I do believe in Bible justice. The question is, how do you arrive at justice in a secular society? If you believe that you are not being paid a fair wage, do you then use force and coercion to get your own way? That is what you are advocating, the use of force.

    As for salvation by faith, salvation mean healing. Take a physician and a patient; the patient has a terminal disease for which there is a medication that can help remedy the situation, if a patient is prescribed the medication, and the patient takes that medication and gets better, then what saved the patient? The Doctor? The Medicine? The Patient? Which is it? Or none of the above? Must the patient take the medicine in order to get better? Does the patient boast that they were saved by their own works? Certainly not.

    In the above scenario if it were real life, the answer would be none of the above, the patient was healed by God. All healing is by God. What the physician and the patient are doing is just cooperating, and removing the barriers to the healing process. The doctor did not heal the patient, the medication did not heal the patient, and patient’s works did not heal the patient. She was healed by God. The patient was doing a part, and that part was cooperating with God. When God says go, as with Abraham, Abraham better go. He going was by faith. Abraham had a part to play in cooperating with God. If one keeps the law, that law keeping does not save them, but they keep it by faith in the one who gave the law. Many who try to keep the law will be lost, even though outwardly they did right things. Motives are read by God.

  47. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    It continues to look to me as if you still have not lately carefully read and re-read Romans 4.

    Your repeated assertion that “salvation means healing” is only part of the truth, and not the issue of truth I am addressing.

    Your position, apparently the official position of your chosen faith group, is not in harmony with the doctrine taught by the Bible. It cannot pass the test of Romans 4.

    I read this very chapter to the family this evening.

    You asserted:

    When God says go, as with Abraham, Abraham better go. He going was by faith. Abraham had a part to play in cooperating with God. If one keeps the law, that law keeping does not save them, but they keep it by faith in the one who gave the law.

    Surely Abraham is a remarkable example of faith. His going was surely in obedience to the command of God. But that is not the point GOD made regarding what aspect of faith it is that justified both Abraham and ourselves. Paul wrote the whole 4th chapter of Romans to discuss it in depth. Your reasoning and assertions do not agree at all with what the Apostle Paul by direct statement of inspired Scripture declares about the faith of Abraham that pertains directly to the issue of salvation.

    You comment on the issue of justice:

    The question is, how do you arrive at justice in a secular society? If you believe that you are not being paid a fair wage, do you then use force and coercion to get your own way? That is what you are advocating, the use of force.

    No way. I have not used force and coercion to get my way. I have shared Scripture with the Bible texts printed out in full for my school administrators to read. I have consulted Christian attorneys, Sunday school teachers I have had or my brother has had, and asked how the teacher’s union might better put teeth in collective bargaining contracts, which for Detroit teachers until then, had no “teeth” to require the administration to follow the contract that was agreed to. I then informed the union what I learned, and they followed my advice, and managed to secure the right to binding arbitration when all else fails. That was a matter of Biblical justice, as I furnished Bible proof above that God requires that we absolutely adhere to the contracts to which we have agreed. I gave the Scripture above for you to read, full text provided, from Joshua to Colossians, probably more verses on this particular subject than you have ever encountered before.

    Did I use force? No. I used the Bible. I used reason, logic, evidence, and persuasion to secure justice in my sphere of influence in accordance with the Bible.

    Now may I respectfully urge you again to study carefully Romans 4.

    It may well be that your salvation and mine depends upon rightly understanding this chapter.

  48. A. Way says:

    Jerry – you have no clue about my faith community.

    Romans 4: If Abraham had been justified as a reward for his works of obedience, he indeed would have had something to be proud of. But actually, Abraham had nothing to boast about in the sight of God. Paul explains why in Romans 4:3-5. The truth of the matter is that Abraham did not receive his justification as a reward for works at all, but rather in the same manner as all other believers.

  49. A. Way says:

    Oh yeah, with respect to Romans 4, keep in mind all of Romans. Romans 2:13 ESV For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Also, we are saved by the GRACE of God. That is what really saves us. And that through faith. Ephesians 2:8 ESV For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, And I’ll go with the Bible’s definition of grace. (Titus 3:5-7 compared with Isaiah 53:11)

  50. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    You suggest I have no idea of the identity of your faith community. That might well be true. I doubt that you are Southern Baptist. I doubt that you are Methodist. But the views you have consistently expressed are likely shared by Seventh-day Adventists, so in the light of your several references to the writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White, you have surely become most familiar with the viewpoint of that particular denomination, whether or not you specifically affiliate with them in attendance and worship or not. Adventists are historicists, not futurists, and believe in annihilation, and so are annihilationists, all viewpoints you have expressed here.

    I am glad you are aware of some of the content of Romans 4.

    You make reference to Romans 2:13,

    Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
    Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
    Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    But you will surely recall Ecclesiastes 7:20,

    Ecc 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

    And I know you are familiar with James 2:10,

    Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

    Therefore, the Law has no part in our salvation, for no one can keep it.

    The Law creates an awareness on our part of our shortcomings, and alerts us to the fact that we need a Savior. Thus, the Law, properly understood, can serve as a means of showing us our need of salvation made available only through Christ by our faith in him alone.

    Paul said as much when he said, in Galatians 3:24,

    Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
    Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
    Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

    The law was our schoolmaster.
    Now that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
    Therefore, we are no longer under the law.
    Instead, we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.